Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

West Cheshire Water Bill,

As amended, considered:—

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill he now read the Third time.—[The Chairman, of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Southend Water Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (DOCK CHARGES, SCOTLAND) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,—

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to London and North Eastern Railway (Dock Charges, Scotland)," presented by Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (IMMIGRATION LAW).

Captain BRASS: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what effect the new United States immigration law, which comes into force on 1st July next, will have on the number of persons allowed to enter America from this country; and, in view of the fact that Ireland is now a Dominion, in what proportion the new
quota allocated to Great Britain and Ireland will be sub-divided?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): Separate quotas are allocated under the new Act to Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State respectively. No exact figures are as yet available, but it is estimated in the Report of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalisation of the House of Representatives on the Johnson Bill that the total number of immigrants to be admitted will be


Great Britain and Northern Ireland
41,772


Irish Free State
20,886


giving a total of 62,658, as against a total of 77,342 for the previous year, when separate quotas were not allocated. A reduction in the neighbourhood of 15,000 is therefore to be expected.

Captain BRASS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how the proportions have been allocated?

Mr. PONSONBY: No; I should require notice of that question.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman go into the matter, seeing that, according to his statement, Ireland, with a population of 4,000,000, is to have half of what Great Britain and Northern Ireland are to have?

Oral Answers to Questions — MONTENEGRO.

Mr. MOREL: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to the further reports of the continued reign of terror in Montenegro; when the promised British consular appointment at Cettinje will be made; and whether, in connection with this appointment, His Majesty's Government have considered selecting His Majesty's former Minister to Montenegro, Count de Salis, for the post?

Mr. PONSONBY: We have received no reports of late from any source which can be considered reliable. I can assure the hon. Member that the appointment of a Vice-Consul at Cettinje may be expected very shortly. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Government to place the whole question of the Montenegrin problem before the League of Nations?

Mr. PONSONBY: I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CHATHAM DOCKYARD (WAGES).

Mr. B. SMITH: 7.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that a recent Admiralty Order causes a reduction of 1½d. per hour in the wages of men engaged in tanks at Chatham Dockyard applying bitumastic solution and enamel; whether he is aware that the men have to enter these tanks through manholes and apply the solution boiling hot, and that the fumes from the solution are most obnoxious, with the result that the men are frequently overcome and have to be extracted from the tanks to the fresh air; and will he cause an immediate inquiry to be made in order that these men may be adequately recompensed for this dangerous and obnoxious work?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Hodges): The amount of the allowance authorised by the Admiralty to be paid to workmen applying hot bitumastic compositions in confined spaces has not been reduced. The allowance will be paid when men are employed under the conditions stated in my hon. Friend's question.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "WEYMOUTH."

Captain Viscount CURZON: 8.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that His Majesty's Ship "Weymouth" has been ordered to sail for the East with relief crews early in July; that this will entail passage through the tropics at the hottest time of the year; and that owing to the very limited accommodation on board intense discomfort has been suffered on previous voyages made by this ship of a similar character; whether he can state what is the number of officers and men it is proposed to embark on this occasion; what is the normal complement of this
ship; what steps it is intended to take to avoid overcrowding on this occasion; and whether the ships of the Royal Indian Marine at present not in use could be used for trooping purposes?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): His Majesty's Ship "Weymouth" will leave Chatham for Colombo on or shortly after 17th July. The normal complement is 461; it is expected that the total number of ranks and ratings on board will be about 400. No steps are, therefore, required to avoid overcrowding. The reason for the "Weymouth" sailing before end of the hot weather is that the crew of Majesty's Ship "Colombo" is already overdue for relief. The arrangements to be made for the relief of crews of His Majesty's Ships are continually under review, and suitable merchant vessels are used for the purpose when it can be done economically. The proposed use of a Royal Indian Marine ship would not be economical, since it would be necessary to steam her to England empty before starting the voyage, and back to India after discharging the relieved crews. The Admiralty have received no reports as to the alleged discomfort suffered on previous voyages.

Viscount CURZON: If the hon. Gentleman has particulars forwarded to him of cases where intense suffering has been caused on board this ship through overcrowding, will he look into the matter?

Mr. AMMON: I certainly will.

WELFARE CONFERENCE, 1924.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 9.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will follow the precedent established in 1922 and publish, for the information of the men, a list of requests advanced by the 1924 Welfare Conference, without waiting for decisions to be arrived at?

Mr. AMMON: The question will be considered when the requests have been received at the Admiralty.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Sir B. FALLE: 10.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any of the tubercular naval invalids included in the 97.9 percentage for 1923, considered to be non-attributable to service, have questioned the opinion
arrived at by naval medical boards; and whether an opportunity will be afforded these men to appeal to an independent tribunal if and when the institution of an appeal tribunal is approved?

Mr. AMMON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, the matter is still under consideration.

LUNACY.

Sir B. FALLE: 11.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why naval lunatic ratings, whose insanity is attributable to service, have their pensions withheld and appropriated to the cost of their maintenance; and whether he will consider a revision of the Regulations, authorising payment of pensions in those cases to their wives or dependants?

Mr. AMMON: Under Section 335 of the Lunacy Act (53 Vict. c. 5) the cost of maintenance is a first charge against a lunatic's pension and the King's Regulations do not permit the concurrent payment of pension and the provision of free maintenance of the pensioner. I am afraid that I cannot consider revision of these Regulations in the sense suggested, but I would point out that, under present conditions, by reason of the higher rate of an "attributable" pension the wives or dependants of men whose disabilities are due to the service receive higher money allowances from Greenwich Hospital funds.

Mr. MILLS: Can my hon. Friend say whether that also extends to the dockyard men?

Mr. AMMON: I should like to have notice of that question.

ADMIRALTY YACHT "ENCHANTRESS."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty from what ships or establishments will the officers and ratings required to put the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress" into temporary commission be drawn; and how is it proposed to make up the lost leave or instruction to these officers and men?

Mr. AMMON: The officers will be taken from those awaiting appointment
and the ratings from supernumeraries awaiting draft in depots or from the complements of harbour establishments, which will be temporarily reduced on account of the Reserve Fleet exercises. Any man who may be kept from leave or taken from instruction during the 10 days' commission will return to his depot or establishment afterwards and have whatever leave is due or resume the instruction he was receiving.

Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman say from what depot the band will be drawn?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that these officers and men will be on board for only ten days altogether? Will they not have to clean the ship, and so on, afterwards?

Mr. AMMON: They will be on just as long as is necessary for them to do the necessary work, but it will not have any effect on the others. They will be drawn from supernumeraries and those who are awaiting draft.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the hon. Gentleman think the Admiralty is justified in putting this ship in commission for ten days at this great expense?

Mr. AMMON: As I have already explained when the hon. and gallant Member was not present, there are other means of inspecting the Fleet which could be undertaken, but which would be much more costly than £1,100 for the ten days.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is there to be a ballot for those who are to get on the "Enchantress"?

SUBMARINE DEPOT, PORTSMOUTH (OFFICERS' MESS).

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: 16.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute is at present running the officers' mess of His Majesty's submarine depot at Portsmouth; when authority to undertake this venture was sanctioned by the men's committee; the amount of any loss from this experiment accrued to date; and from what sources this deficiency is being made up?

Mr. AMMON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes are authorised by the Memorandum of Association to undertake business of this nature, and no further authority is, therefore, required. It is not anticipated that this business will result in any loss. I may add that it is, in no circumstances, the policy of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes to continue any business undertaking at a loss.

OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Viscount CURZON: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been reached with reference to the payment of a marriage allowance to officers of the Royal Navy?

Mr. AMMON: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on the subject.

Viscount CURZON: Does the hon. Gentleman expect to be able to make an announcement at an early date?

Mr. AMMON: I am afraid not.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

A. OLDLAND, REDFIELD, BRISTOL.

Mr. BAKER: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Albert Oldland, of 41, Gerrish Avenue, Redfield, Bristol, who lost his toes due to frost bite during the War, and who is in receipt of a 40 per cent. pension; whether he is aware that as a consequence Mr. Oldland can only undertake light work and has been unemployed, with the exception of a few days, for more than a year; and whether, in the circumstances, it is possible to offer Mr. Oldland a period of training in a light occupation?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on 2nd April regarding this case, of which I am sending him a copy.

J. PARKIN, WILLINGTON.

Mr. BATEY: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Mr. J. Parkin, 6, York Street, Willington, County Durham, served nearly three years in the
fighting line, being twice wounded; that he has been trained and is now employed as a joiner, only receiving 65 per cent. of the district rate of wages for joiners, namely, 5s. 10d. per day; that he is a married man with a wife and three children to support; and will he explain why he has not been granted some Government allowance to supplement these low wages?

Mr. SHAW: Mr. Parkin has been paid full or partial allowances by the Ministry of Labour for the maximum period possible under the Training Scheme for the building trade, and I regret that I have no power to make further payments. The scheme provides for the payment by the employer, at the stage which Mr. Parkin has reached, of 65 per cent. of the district rate, and for progressive increases in the future. The rate for colliery joiners in Willington is less than that for joiners not in collieries, but Mr. Parkin was placed with a colliery at his own request as he receives a free house and coals in addition to his wages.

Mr. BATEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man signed an agreement with the Ministry of Labour expecting to be paid an allowance for three years, and that he has only been paid the allowance for 26 weeks?

Mr. SHAW: No, I am not aware of any breach of agreement. If my hon. Friend will give me evidence that a breach of agreement has been made I will see that the matter is attended to.

Mr. BATEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that 5s. 10d. a day for a married man with three children, who has served three years in the War, and has been twice wounded, a reasonable allowance?

Mr. SHAW: I did not say anything about "a reasonable allowance." What I said was that I regretted I had no power to make further payments.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INDIVIDUAL TRADES.

Captain BRASS: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons, men or women, registered as unemployed in this country in each individual trade separately?

Mr. SHAW: I am forwarding to the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the June issue of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," which contains, on pages 210 and 211, statistics of unemployment in respect of 100 industry groups. A similar table appears in each issue of the "Labour Gazette."

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that between the 2nd and 9th June the number of unemployed persons rose by 20,085; whether he will indicate in what industries the increase was most severe; and whether he is taking any steps to reduce the number?

Mr. SHAW: I am aware of the increase referred to, but as detailed statistics on an industrial basis are compiled only at monthly intervals, I am unable to state the extent to which particular industries are affected. The steps taken and proposed by the Government for the relief of unemployment have been announced and discussed in the House on several occasions during this Session.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Midland district unemployment has increased by 11,085 since the beginning of this month; is not that due to the repeal of the McKenna Duties?

Mr. SHAW: I am aware that there has been a considerable increase of unemployment in the Midland district, but it is in the heavy engineering, not the motor industry.

Viscount CURZON: Have you started work on the Wash yet?

Mr. LUMLEY: Is there no increase of unemployment in the motor trade?

Mr. SHAW: As far as my figures go—I do not suggest that they are perfectly accurate—they show about 500 less in the motor industry.

Mr. GILBERT: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed registered for the year ending 31st March, 1924, at Employment Exchanges in the County of London; and can he give approximately the number of men, women and young persons for whom employment was found through these Exchanges during that period?

Mr. SHAW: The total number of registrations in the 12 months ended 7th April, 1924, at Employment Exchanges in the County of London was 796,495, of whom 504,113 were men, 176,044 were women, and 116,338 were juveniles. The numbers of separate individuals registered were probably rather more than half these totals. The number of vacancies filled during the same period was 137,674, of whom 53,670 were men, 38,962 were women, and 45,042 were juveniles. The number of separate individuals placed in employment was probably about 110,000.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

Mr. W. MARTIN: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that many labour employment committees are demanding the production of documentary evidence that work is being sought; that this is proving a great hardship in many cases, as owing to the number calling at certain works the foremen refuse to grant such evidence; and will he consider placing the onus upon the local committee to satisfy themselves on the accuracy of the statements made by direct application to the employers said to have been visited?

Mr. SHAW: I am aware that in certain cases documentary evidence is called for, but this is only done where the applicant's oral statement has failed to satisfy the committee and they have no other alternative but to recommend the refusal of benefit. The terms of the Unemployment Insurance Acts place the burden of proof on the applicant, and I am unable to transfer it by administrative action to the committee.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some committees, even when documentary evidence is tendered, refuse to accept it

Mr. SHAW: I am aware that many statements are made, but when definite proof is given I am prepared to investigate a case on any occasion. I simply cannot investigate an ex parte statement without any proof being given.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I did, in one case, submit a document to him; and is he aware that the reply I got was that the matter was one for the committee to decide?

Mr. AYLES: Does the Minister circulate his answers to questions of this sort to the various, unemployment committees of the country; and will this be so circulated?

Mr. SHAW: I do not think that the answer to this question need to be circulated to the employment committees of the country. As these committees cannot speak for themselves, may I say that so far as I know the workers' representatives on these committees do their duty; any implication that they do not ought not to be made until something like proof is given.

Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men who for 30 years had been working at. Woolwich Arsenal, skilled mechanics, were discharged because they were approaching 60, and having had no work whatever since 1919, are now deemed to be out of an insurable occupation simply because they have been unable to get a job at their own trade; should not guidance be given in cases of that sort?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that question had better be put down.

EGREMONT FIRE BRIGADE.

Mr. GAVAN-DUFFY: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the unemployment benefit of Joseph Hornby has been disallowed owing to the fact that, on the 4th April, in company with other members of the Egremont Fire Brigade, of which he has been 16 years a member, he helped to extinguish a fire which had taken hold of a private dwelling, and for which service he received the usual gratuity of 5s.; that because of this his benefit has been disallowed and will he inquire into this matter?

Mr. SHAW: I find that Mr. Hornby's claim for benefit was disallowed for one day by the chief insurance officer on the ground that on that day, for which Mr. Hornby received payment for his services as a member of the Egremont Fire Brigade, he was not unemployed. This decision was upheld on appeal to the Court of Referees. I have no power to alter this decision, but in order that a final and authoritative decision may be obtained I am arranging for a formal appeal to be lodged with the Umpire.

Mr. GAVAN-DUFFY: In view of that answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on tree Estimates.

ERRORS IN PAYMENT.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is taking any steps to prevent the recurrence of errors such as those representing over a half a million sterling referred to in the Unemployment Fund Account, 1923–24, and in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon?

Mr. SHAW: I assume the hon. Member refers to the year 1922–23, not 1923–24. A sum of £468,444 in contributions was paid in error and subsequently refunded, principally on account of the exclusion of permanent railway servants by administrative order and of decisions of the High Court with regard to the definition of domestic service. These erroneous payments were due to temporary uncertainty as to the scope of the scheme. The other material item is £62,645, representing benefit paid in error. This is about one-seventh of 1 per cent. of the amount of benefit paid, namely, about £42,000,000. In paying out so large a sum in more than 50,000,000 separate payments, a small proportion of error is unavoidable, but every effort is made to restrict errors to a minimum.

EMYPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Mr. GILBERT: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of Employment Exchanges maintained by his Department in the County of London; the total staff which are employed at the same; and the approximate annual cost of these Exchanges to his Department?

Mr. SHAW: The number of Employment Exchanges in the London County Council area is 23, and on 16th June, 1924, the total number of persons employed was 994, including 54 persons engaged temporarily for emergency work. The annual cost of these Exchanges, almost the whole of which is paid out of the Unemployment Fund, is estimated at £236,900, excluding cost of premises and other charges not borne on the Ministry of Labour Vote.

Mr. GILBERT: 14 How many ex-service men are on the staffs?

Mr. SHAW: If my hon. Friend puts a question down, I will try and give an answer to it.

Miss JEWSON: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims of women to uncovenanted benefit which were disallowed by rota sub-committees last month; and whether he will grant the same right of appeal in the case of uncovenanted as in the case of covenanted benefits?

Mr. SHAW: The number of applications by women for uncovenanted benefit which were recommended for disallowance by local employment committees in Great Britain in the month ending 12th May, 1924, was 7,648. The rights of appeal to a Court of Referees and the Umpire are limited by the Acts to covenanted benefit. I do not think it would be appropriate to apply this procedure to uncovenanted benefit, and I may point out that in the case of uncovenanted benefit the decision rests with the Minister, acting on the recommendation of the local employment committee.

Sir W. DAVISON: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour how many married women whose husbands are in employment are in receipt of unemployment donation?

Mr. SHAW: I regret that, without instituting a special inquiry, I am unable to give the information required.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any married women receiving uncovenanted benefit?

Mr. SHAW: I cannot say that

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not very desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should know that in these days of financial stringency married women, whose husbands are working, should not receive uncovenanted benefit.

Mr. SHAW: Every person paying the same contribution is entitled to the same benefits, whether married or single.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what I referred to was uncovenanted benefit—that is, that married women should not receive the benefit who have not paid any contributions?

Mr. SHAW: No married woman can get any benefit under any conditions
where that benefit is not paid to other persons under exactly the same conditions.

RELIEF WORK (WAGES).

Mr. G. OLIVER: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour the principle adopted by his Department when men are transferred from one Employment Exchange to an Employment Exchange in another district for employment on relief work where different rates of pay are in operation; and what rate should be paid, the rate of the district from which the men are transferred or the rate in the district in which they are employed?

Mr. T. SHAW: The rates of pay are not fixed by my Department, but by the local authority in accordance with the terms of the grant made through the Unemployment Grants Committee or other grant-making Department. The type of case mentioned, which is not of frequent occurrence, would be specially examined by the grant-making authority.

UNCOVENANTED BENEFIT, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have applied for uncovenanted benefit in the following Glasgow Employment Exchanges: South Side, Govan, Bridgeton, Springburn, Glasgow; and what number have been refused in the case of each Exchange?

Mr. SHAW: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The tabular statement is as follows:

Applications for uncovenanted benefit in the period from the beginning of the first benefit year (18th October, 1923) to 9th June, 1924.

Local Employment Committee.
Applications referred to Committee.
Applications recommended for disallowance by Committee


Glasgow (South Side)
28,523
2,584


Govan
10,157
1,719


Bridgeton
24,826
2,874


Springburn
10,393
628


Glasgow
23,378
1,368

RUSSIA (BRITISH TRADE).

Mr. LUMLEY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any intimation has been received from the Russian Government that they are prepared to place orders in this country which will provide work for large numbers of engineering workers provided that credit facilities are forthcoming?

Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I understand that certain proposals involving the placing of orders in this country for manufactured goods have recently been submitted to the Advisory Committee appointed under the Trade Facilities Acts, and that these proposals are under the Committee's consideration. Pending the examination of these proposals by the Committee, I am not in a position to make a further statement on the matter.

Mr. AYLES: Will the hon. Member use his utmost endeavours to see that consideration is speeded up, seeing that the engineering and shipbuilding industries, which are mainly concerned in the proposals before the Trade Facilities Committee, are the most badly hit by unemployment in this country?

Mr. LUNN: I will call attention to my hon. Friend's statement.

Sir W. DAVIDSON: Has the hon. Member any information that the Russian Government have been buying cotton in this country?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that the Trade Facilities scheme has been extended to the Russian Government?

Mr. LUNN: I did not state that, because I do not understand that that has been done at the moment but that does not prevent the consideration of schemes by the Trade Facilities Committee, and they are at the moment examining the question.

Mr. LUMLEY: When will the hon. Member be able to give us more information?

Mr. LUNN: I have another question by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on that matter, but I am not able to say, nor will I be able to say
even to him, the exact date when I shall be in a position to give a complete answer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the time which will probably be required, and the time already taken, to settle the many complicated and difficult questions outstanding between this country and the Union Government of Russia, he will consider immediately extending the Exports Credits Schedule (Overseas Trade, Credit and Insurance Act) to include Russia for the benefit of British merchants and manufacturers?

Mr. LUNN: This matter is receiving the active attention of His Majesty's Government, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many months of valuable time are being lost and business is constantly being lost to this country in consequence of the delay?

Mr. LUNN: I cannot at the moment say more than is contained in my answer, but I share my hon. and gallant Friend's hope that this matter may be settled as early as possible.

MINERS' WAGES, BRISTOL.

Mr. AYLES: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Bristol mineowners have threatened to lock out the miners in the Bristol area unless they consent to dishonour the national agreement recently come to between the mineowners of Great Britain and the Miners' Federation; and whether he will take steps to see that any men so discharged shall receive unemployment pay until such time as they are allowed to resume work?

Mr. SHAW: I am aware that a question has arisen in the Bristol area as to the rates of wages at which the collieries shall continue working. In the event of work being suspended and the men becoming unemployed, the payment of benefit will depend upon whether the conditions as laid down by the Act are satisfied or not. I have no power to vary these conditions, and any question that may arise respecting them must be decided, as required by the Statute, by the insurance officer, subject to the usual right of appeal by the insured person or his association.

Mr. AYLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to whether it is possible so to alter the Statute as to make it impossible for employers to break national agreements which make men suffer as these men had to suffer?

CASUAL WARDS.

Mr. MILLS: 37.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to complaints about the conditions under which men and women passing through villages in search of work are compelled to sleep in what are known as casual wards; and whether he will cause inspection to be made without warning workhouse masters, especially in the rural areas of Berkshire, Oxfordshire, and Kent?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): Complaints of this kind are from time to time received and investigated. The casual wards are regularly inspected by my officers, and the inspections are ordinarily made without previous notice to the workhouse masters.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

PRODUCTION OF HOUSES (ESTIMATED).

Mr. E. SIMON: 39.
asked the Minister of Health what number of new working-class houses he estimates to be necessary to make up for present arrears, to replace old houses to be closed between now and 1938, and to meet the prospective increase in population between now and 1939?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on this subject on the Easter Adjournment. While it is not practicable to make a close estimate of the total number of houses required, I am satisfied that the Government are not overestimating in aiming at the production of 2,500,000 houses for Great Britain during the next 15 years in order to meet the needs to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. SIMON: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking into consideration the new information which is referred to in Question No. 41?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Yes. I am taking into consideration all the information at my disposal.

Mr. SIMON: Does that mean that there will be a much smaller increase in the population during the next 15 years?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I think it would facilitate business if I dealt with Question 41 when we reach it.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman still anticipate that 2,500,000 houses will be built in 15 years?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Yes, at least that number.

POPULATION (INCREASE).

Mr. SIMON: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of Professor Bowley's recent estimate that the rate of increase of the population of Great Britain will steadily become less during the next two decades, and that the population will actually become stationary about 1941; and whether he has taken any steps to investigate this estimate, which has so vital a bearing on the question of how many new houses will be needed during the next 15 years?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the very carefully prepared statement by the Registrar-General's Department on the factors governing the growth of our population and the tendencies at present discernible, which is contained in Appendix V of the recently issued Report of the Overseas Settlement Committee—Command Paper 2107. The broad conclusions at which the Department arrive are, that we are at present too near the War and too much involved in the abnormalities resulting from it to attempt with confidence any estimate of the future movement of population, but that there is no safe ground for assuming that there has yet been any permanent departure from the conditions which during the last 50 years have resulted in a natural increase of approximately 400,000 per annum for Great Britain

SUBSIDY (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to introduce legislation which will enable members of local authorities to receive a housing subsidy under the provisions of the Housing Act, 1923, without thereby becoming disqualified?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 13th ultimo to a similar question by the hon. Member for Bedwelty.

SUBSIDY.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 54.
asked the Minister of Health with regard to his recent negotiations with the representatives of local authorities as to the terms of his new Housing Bill, whether he will say what steps he took to resist their demand that the subsidy should be limited to the small type of houses specified in the Housing Act of 1923; and, seeing that he refused the request of the local authorities for an extra grant to small urban districts, will he say why he did not also decline their request that the subsidy should be limited to the type of houses specified in the 1923 Act?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am satisfied that if the local authorities build sufficient of the larger size of houses specified in the Act of 1923, the housing conditions of the country will be much improved. There is nothing in the Act to prevent local authorities building a larger type of house, but it was felt that the country could not subsidise them.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that conferences held by 300 local authorities during the present week and last week have repudiated the suggestion he has made that they desire to be tied to this small type of house, and will he reconsider the matter?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have consulted with associations who legitimately claimed to represent local authorities, and they were unanimous in their demand that the subsidy should be confined to the type of houses already laid down in the Act.

Mr. THOMSON: If the right hon. Gentleman finds, on further inquiry, that the municipal associations do not on this particular point represent the feelings of local authorities, will he reconsider the matter?

Mr. WHEATLEY: If the associations of local authorities make representations to me to that effect, I shall certainly view them with the utmost sympathy.

An HON. MEMBER: Would it not be possible, where any local authority makes
representations, for the Minister to extend it to them?

Mr. WHEATLEY: No, I cannot deal with local authorities separately; I must deal with it as a national question.

KINGSTON-ON-THAMES.

Mr. PENNY: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Kingston-upon-Thames housing committee submitted certain proposals for the erection of houses, with the respective estimates, for his approval on the 27th May; that after a delay of 18 days request was made by telephone for an immediate answer, and, after a further three days' delay, they were informed that none of the tenders were such that the council would be well advised to accept, and the Ministry would not feel justified in sanctioning a loan to the amount of such tenders; and whether he will in future take steps to avoid such delay over a matter which could easily be decided in a few days?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The application in this case presented difficulties which required special consideration. I am satisfied that every effort is made to deal with correspondence as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. PENNY: Will the Minister tell me what were the special reasons for the delay, and do not such delays give rise to a feeling in the country that the Socialist party are not keen on getting these houses built?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to reflect on the efficiency of my Department. I can assure him that I have inquired info this case, and the delay, and the cause of it, were quite exceptional, and I have every reason to believe it will not be repeated

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is this one of the examples which enable the right hon. Gentleman to be so satisfied that 2,500,000 houses, at least, will be built in 15 years?

ALTERNATIVE DWELLINGS.

Mr. E. BROWN: 57.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses built under the 1923 Act which are being occupied as alternative dwellings such as week-end cottages?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have no information of any houses having been erected for the purpose suggested with the assistance of subsidies granted by local authorities under the Housing Act, 1923.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that anything of this kind is occurring?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have already stated that I have no information to that effect.

WOODVILLE GROVE, TOTTENHAM.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a letter from the Tottenham Urban District Council drawing his attention to five cottages in Woodville Grove, Tottenham, which have, remained unoccupied for eight years, and asking for the introduction of legislation to prevent houses remaining vacant for a prolonged period; and whether he can make any statement on the matter?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have received the letter to which the question relates. As I have indicated in replies to previous questions, I have much sympathy with the suggestion made, but I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on these lines during the present Session.

ANGMERING.

Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: 60.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the housing conditions in Angmering, Sussex, are most unsatisfactory; that a large number of houses in that district have already been condemned for some years, and that no steps have yet been taken to replace them; and will he cause an inquiry to be made into the matter with a view to abating the evil?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am aware of the housing conditions generally in the East Preston Rural District. The council already have an approved scheme for assisting private enterprise in the erection of houses under the Act of 1923, and I am hopeful that further action will be taken under the extended provisions of the new Housing Bill. In the circumstances, I do not think that, for the moment at any rate, there is need for an inquiry.

Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: Could the right hon. Gentleman order an inquiry
into this matter, with a view to giving some relief?

Mr. WHEATLEY: If I find, as a result of further experience, that an inquiry is necessary, I shall have it made.

DIRECT LABOUR.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 61.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that houses built by the Building Workers' Guild at Irlam were £260 cheaper than the same size and quality of houses built by profit-making contractors; that houses built by the Office of Works at Pontypridd were £194 per house cheaper than the private contractors' prices; that the direct labour scheme at Norwich saved the city £25,000 on contractors' prices; that direct labour at Tonbridge saved £200 per house; that direct labour at Southgate saved £350 per house; and that direct labour at Bentley saved £200 per house; and if he will see that facilities and encouragement are given to local authorities to set up local works departments?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am unable to check the figures given by my hon. Friend, and shall be glad to hear from him on what they are based. In some of the cases to which he refers the final accounts of the housing schemes have not yet been received. I am quite prepared to encourage a local authority to undertake building by direct labour if satisfied that the authority can make efficient arrangements for the supervision of the work, and that the method is likely to prove financially advantageous to the ratepayers.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these figures were given from the Front Bench several years ago by Sir Alfred Mond, when he was in a position to speak with authority on the subject?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is it not a fact that the figures now quoted do not include overhead or departmental charges at all, and that in many cases the accounts have not yet been settled?

Mr. SUNLIGHT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the failures of attempts to build houses in this way?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I had not any previous knowledge of these figures; I have seen them now for the first time. My answer is based on my own experience in other places.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mr. GILBERT: 62.
asked the Minister of Health the number of slum areas in the county of London his Department has given sanction to for clearance under the Housing Act of last year; and will he state approximately the number of houses, the total area and the number of persons such clearance schemes have dealt with?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Three schemes in the County of London were confirmed in 1923 and 1924, comprising 668 houses, an area of approximately 13 acres, and a population of 3,760. Several other schemes are under consideration.

BRICKS (PRICES).

Mr. AYLES: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Bristol Brick Company, Limited, on 16th June again raised the price of bricks in Bristol by 4s. 6d. per thousand for common engineering and stock bricks, and 5s. per thousand for all other bricks; and whether, in view of the adverse influence this has on the cost of house building, he will take immediate steps to stop these increases by giving municipalities power to take over the brickyards within their area or in their vicinity, or by other means?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have not received information concerning the particular case to which my hon. Friend refers. As he is aware, I am proposing, in the Building Materials (Charges and Supply) Bill, that the Government should be given extensive powers to deal with unreasonable prices.

INUNDATIONS, MIDLANDS.

Mr. E. BROWN: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can now make any statement as to the effect of the recent inundations in the Midland and West Midland counties?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sending the hon. Member a Memorandum based on reports which I have received from my inspectors on this subject.

EAST INDIA WOOL (DISINFECTION).

Mr. WARDLAW MILNE: 43.
asked the Minister of Health what the intention of the Government is regarding the suggested compulsory disinfection of East
India wool; whether he is aware that if this Regulation is brought into force it is probable that the article secured will be inferior in quality, thus resulting in a serious handicap upon the carpet trade of this country; whether as it is advisable to put all buyers on equal terms if disinfection is proved to be necessary at all, he will consider the possibility of arranging for this disinfection to be carried out at the source of supply; and if he will suspend the bringing of such an Order into force pending full and proper inquiry into the whole matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I have been asked to reply to this question. The whole matter is being fully considered and no decision has yet been taken. I am not aware of any foundation for the allegation in the second part of the question.

Mr. MILNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that other countries, which are keen competitors with us in this trade, have rejected these disinfection proposals?

Mr. MACKINDER: Is the right lion. Gentleman aware that the recommendation for the disinfection of dangerous wool was unanimously made by the Departmental Committee on Anthrax; that the disinfection of wool treated in this way will undoubtedly save human life; and that the work of disinfection should be extended to other dangerous wools?

Mr. MILNE: Has there been any suggestion by the workers—

Mr. SPEAKER: Further questions had better be put down on the Order Paper.

NAVAL ARMAMENTS (LIMITATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that for different can see both the Japanese and American warship building programmes have been retarded for at least one year; and whether he will consider this opportunity of effecting a saving of money and a bettering of the conditions for an agreement on naval disarmament by deliberately retarding the British shipbuilding programme in answer to the retardation of the programmes of the two next strongest naval Powers?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): The answer to the first part of the question is, that Congressional authorisation for the United States building programme has been delayed until December next, and that the Japanese programme has been delayed for a year. As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on 19th June and to the replies given by the Prime Minister on 23rd June.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that whatever these other friendly naval Powers do we are still going on with our building programme, quite regardless of these facts?

Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Member aware that these ships are required for the replacement of obsolete ships and are in no sense being built in competition with other countries?

Mr. SPEAKER: This matter has already been debated.

COMMUNIST ORGANISATIONS.

Viscount CURZON: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Government have information that Communist organisations in this country have received and are receiving money from foreign revolutionary societies, the Government will set up a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question of revolutionary organisations in this country and their connection with unauthorised or lightning strikes, their organisation, and source of their funds and, in particular, the cause, identity of the individuals, organisations, funds, etc., of the recent strike on the Great Western and Underground Railways, with a view to protecting the public from similar attempts to exploit it in future?

Mr. CLYNES: I do not think that the adoption of the Noble Lord's suggestion would serve a useful purpose.

WOODS (DAMAGE BY GAME).

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister what steps are taken to ensure that State expenditure upon the properties of the Forestry Commissioners, the Crown woods, and the properties of corporate bodies and private individuals
are safeguarded from decimation by rabbits and game; if he will say who appoints the Forestry Commissioners; and if he will consider the advisability of securing that this Commission shall be represented by a Minister of the Crown in this House?

Mr. CLYNES: Properties on which State expenditure has been incurred for afforestation are protected from such damage as the question refers to by the appointment of keepers and trappers. In accordance with Section 1 of the Forestry Act, 1919, the Forestry Commissioners are appointed by His Majesty under sign manual. The point raised in the last part of the question is under consideration.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Have no complaints whatever been received that considerable amounts of public money spent in afforestation have been wasted because game has destroyed the young trees?

Mr. CLYNES: I have no knowledge of such complaints, but I shall be glad to receive any information on the subject.

Mr. HANNON: Does not the keeping of game give employment to a very considerable number of people?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The game is very useful for vermin's food.

BLIND PERSONS' BILL.

Mr. AYLES: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the unopposed Second Reading of the Blind Persons Act (1920) Amendment Bill and the necessity for this reform, he can see his way to star this Bill and give it facilities for becoming law this Session?

Mr. CLYNES: I regret that I cannot at present add anything to the reply which I gave last Thursday to a question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. T. Henderson). I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

GERMAN REPARATION (DAWES REPORT).

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Committee of experts on finance, known as
the Dawes Committee, while making recommendations as to the capacity of Germany to pay reparations, fails to explain any satisfactory way by which this country may expect reparation payments without serious injury to British industries and employment; and whether, having regard to the experience of Germany in accepting reparation goods after the Franco-Prussian War, the refusal of Japan to have her markets glutted with reparation goods after the Russo-Japanese War, and our own experience after the Treaty of Versailles, he will afford time for discussion of the economic effects of reparations before further instalments are received by this country?

Mr. CLYNES: My hon. Friend will have the usual opportunities for raising the very debatable points to which he refers. I cannot, however, undertake to provide special time for such a discussion.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Does that mean that we are to rely on the Consolidated Fund Bill, or something of that kind, to discuss the Dawes Report? Could not the right hon. Gentleman give a special opportunity for discussion

Mr. CLYNES: I think that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have power to provide an opportunity.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the importance of the Dawes Report, and that, if the Dawes Report places Germany on a gold basis, it will be to the detriment of the pound sterling?

Mr. CLYNES: That is a different point from the one in the question; it is a matter for argument.

Mr. AYLES: Is it not the fact that, when the Prime Minister stated that he was going to put the whole of the weight of the Government behind implementing the Dawes Report and getting it accepted, it met with the general approval of this House, including specific assurances from the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the part of the Dawes Report dealing with reparations is viewed with very great anxiety, particularly in the shipbuilding yards, in view of past experience of reparations; and, in view of this, will it not be better to
provide a day for its discussion, in order that the unemployed workmen may put their point of view through their representatives?

Mr. JOHNSTON: How can it possibly be said that the Dawes Report was received in this House with general acceptance, seeing that no opportunity was ever given for discussing it?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Estimates are the proper place to discuss that question.

LAND PURCHASE, IRELAND.

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 52.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to introduce the Financial Resolutions guaranteeing the principal and interest of the Four and a-half per Cent. Land Stock for the Irish Land Purchase Bill of 1923?

Mr. CLYNES: I cannot name a definite date; but the Government hope to find time for the consideration of these Resolutions in the near future.

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us a more definite assurance? For the past three months we have always been told that it would be an early date. Can he say that it will be within the next fortnight or three weeks, without committing himself to one particular day?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is now a very long outstanding question, and will he not consider the advisability of settling it once and for all?

Mr. CLYNES: As the Session advances we shall, no doubt, receive a fuller measure of co-operation from all quarters of the House in respect of Parliamentary business, and, therefore, we hope that the date is not far off.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Could not the right hon. Gentleman say quite definitely whether it is possible to deal with these Resolutions before the Autumn Session, in order that people in Ireland may know where they are. Sales are being held up at the present moment on account of the uncertainty that exists.

Mr. CLYNES: We certainly hope to find time before the Autumn Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

STRATHAVEN-DARVEL RAILWAY.

Mr. DICKSON: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company are threatening to close down the line between Strathaven and Darvel; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the interests of the travelling public and of the farming community, who use the line for the receipt of seeds, manures, and implements, and for the despatch of produce?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. H. Gosling): I am not aware that the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company have actually threatened to close down the section of line to which my hon. Friend refers, but I understand that they do not consider that full effect has been given to the arrangements under which this line, which was partially closed during the War, was re-opened on the understanding that full use would be made of it by the farmers and others in the locality, and that they propose to discuss the matter with the parties interested.

Mr. DICKSON: Am I to understand that the Government looks kindly on a railway company which proposes to take the fat of the land and leave the lean?

Mr. GOSLING: So long as he does not include me, my hon. Friend can understand what he likes.

Mr. DICKSON: I do not want to enter into a duel of humour with my hon. Friend I should easily lose. But I wish to have an answer to my question. This is not a humorous House

TAY ROAD BRIDGE SCHEME.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the formal intimation now communicated by Sir Henry Maybury to the Dundee Town Council, confirmatory of the Minister's own explicit announcement in correspondence with the senior Member for Dundee regarding the proposed Tay Road Bridge scheme, and the town council's previous refusal to act on the lines of sharing cost, the Government will lose no further time in deciding to proceed with the preliminary operations, fully intent, if satisfied
therewith, on carrying through the scheme as a Government undertaking?

Mr. GOSLING: No time will be lost in proceeding with the preliminary survey. Until I have received an authoritative report on the feasibility of the scheme and on the probable cost if the scheme is, in fact, feasible, I am obviously not in a position to make any statement as to the construction of the bridge or the allocation of the cost.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Why should there be any variation in the announcements of policy in this matter, and why should it now appear that about £10,000 is being sunk in the pay on the chance of local authorities supporting this scheme when in reality they have definitely decided not to support it?

Mr. GOSLING: The money is going to be used for the purpose of making investigations, and it is impossible to decide what you will do until you know the result of the investigations.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the decision not now to carry through the Parliamentary arrangements and that in the event of the investigations proving unsatisfactory no debit is to be placed against the local authorities, but if satisfactory they are to be called upon to support a scheme regarding the whole undertaking with the conditions which you have now laid down, which they refuse to accept.

Mr. GOSLING: The arrangement is that we find the money to make the investigations. If it turns out that the scheme is one which can be gone on with the money we have used becomes part of the cost of the whole thing.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: And as stated in the letters the hon. Gentleman sent me, the whole cost will then be shared by the local authorities.

HEAVY MOTORS (DAMAGE TO BUILDINGS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 72.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any statistics as to the approximate number and value of buildings which have been damaged or collapsed as the result of vibration due to heavy motor traffic; and whether the Ministry are taking any action to protect householders and others in this matter by placing a limit on the weight and speed of heavy motors?

Mr. GOSLING: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, I may point out that no alteration has been made in the maximum axle weights or speeds of heavy motor cars since 1904, except that the maximum speed of heavy motor cars fitted with resilient tyres and with registered axle weights between six tons and eight tons was raised two years ago from eight miles to 12 miles per hour. I do not think that the remedy lies in the placing of further limitations on the weight and speed of heavy motor cars, but rather in the strengthening and improvement of road surfaces, a process which is being pressed forward as rapidly as circumstances permit.

LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "RAWLINSON."

Captain BENN: 73.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the report of the court which investigated the circumstances attending the loss, with all hands, of the British s.s. "Rawlinson," has been under his consideration; whether this steamer, prior to going to sea on her last voyage, was inspected by a Board of Trade surveyor or surveyors; whether the Board are intending to take any action respecting the animadversions of the court on the condition of the vessel on sailing; and whether the Board will, in particular, take steps to ensure that the hatches of vessels of this type are effectively covered and secured?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The report of the court on the loss of the "Rawlinson" has been considered. The vessel was not seen by a Board of Trade surveyor when starting on her last voyage. The report of the court again calls attention to the importance of making hatches thoroughly secure, and in this agrees with the committee of experts who reported on this matter in April. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that report, and he will see that the Committee made four recommendations. The Board of Trade will use every endeavour to have these recommendations carried into effect, and in this they expect to have the active co-operation of shipowners.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does not the answer to that question convey to my hon. Friend and to his Department the need for increasing the number of surveyors rather than decreasing them as has been done in the past year?

Mr. ALEXANDER: As I said in the Debate on the Mercantile Vote last week, the Board of Trade is considering the question of increasing the staff of surveyors, but I must point out that if you doubled the number of surveyors you could not prevent vessels getting away without being seen.

Captain BENN: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Board of Trade did all that could be done before this tragedy occurred?

Mr. ALEXANDER: This arises on a class of vessel known as a self trimmer. A Committee was appointed as far back as last December which sat for four months, and I am sending the hon. and gallant Gentleman a copy of their report.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

PAPER LITTER AND RUBBISH.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 75.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been drawn to the untidiness of the British Empire Exhibition grounds, to the litter of paper and rubbish that is everywhere; and whether he can take steps to have the grounds kept clean, in view of the fact that their present condition is likely to make a bad impression on foreign visitors to the exhibition?

Mr. LUNN: My attention had not previously been drawn to this matter, but I am informed by the British Empire Exhibition authorities, with whom I have been in communication, that additional receptacles for rubbish are being provided, and that additional cleaners are being engaged. I might, however, add that if the hon. and gallant. Member were to visit the exhibition in the early morning he would, I feel sure, see little cause for complaint; and I think he will agree that, in view of the enormous daily attendance of visitors, the co-operation of the public is essential if the grounds of the exhibition are not to be disfigured by the refuse to which he refers.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in the afternoon the state of the grounds is an absolute disgrace owing to the litter of paper and rubbish everywhere, and in view of the increasing unemployment, could he not employ two or three hundred men to go round the grounds in the daytime and pick up rubbish?

Mr. CLIMIE: Could not the House of Commons be better employed than in discussing the cleaning up of the exhibition?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Are the visitors to the exhibition any worse than Members of the House of Commons in this Chamber?

Mr. PENNY: May I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that it is not only paper, but there is a great leakage of water in various directions, which is distasteful to the public.

Mr. HANNON: How in the world can the administration of the exhibition be held responsible for a water leakage?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon Members, no doubt, wish that the desire for more tidiness may reach the public.

OMNIBUS REGULATIONS.

Mr. VIANT: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the effect of the revised police regulations in force for omnibuses at the British Empire. Exhibition is to give further preferential treatment to the London General Omnibus Company by preventing other omnibuses from stopping to take up or set down passengers in Wembley Hill Road between Raglan Gardens and Harrow Road; whether he is aware that this restricted area is practically the whole of the exhibition area, excepting the entrance to the amusement park, which is at least a quarter of a mile away; and, in view of the fact that the non-combine omnibuses are now unable to approach the main entrance to set down or take up passengers, whether the Commissioner of Police will revise these regulations, with a view of permitting the two island sites to be again used?

Mr. HENDERSON: The Commissioner informs me that his regulations, with which the omnibuses of the London General Omnibus Company, as well as
others, must comply, do not confer preferential treatment. Omnibuses are allowed on the inward and outward journey to stop near the north entrance and the amusement park, and from the south-west entrance to the Harrow Road is approximately 150 yards. Having regard to these facts, and the need for securing safety and preventing obstruction, it is not proposed to revise the regulations.

HOP CONTROL.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 76.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the intention of the Government to extend the hop control for a further period now that there is no longer any need for war-time measures; and whether, if that is to be the case, he will see that any man connected with the track before the War, who served in the Army or Navy during the War, and was in consequence debarred from buying or selling hops during the control, is now put on equal terms with other men in the trade?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Buxton): I do not think that I can hold out any hope that the Government will find itself in a position to extend the hop control for a further period. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise, but I may say that no one was debarred from resuming his business in the trade during the control on account of an interruption due to military service.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: If I give the right hon. Gentleman a case in point will he look into it?

Mr. BUXTON: Certainly.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say exactly at what date-the present hop control will come to an end?

Mr. BUXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly put down a question?

ASSAULTS ON GIRLS.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 77.
asked the Home Secretary what is the present position of the Departmental Committee which he has decided to set up to inquire into the
question of assaults on girls; and whether he is in a position to state who the members of that Departmental Committee will be?

Mr. HENDERSON: I regret the delay in setting up this Committee, which has been largely due to a difficulty in connection with the appointment of a chairman. I now hope to be in a position to proceed with the appointment very shortly.

LICENSING OMNIBUSES, LONDON.

Mr. CLUSE: 79.
asked the Home Secretary whether a concession has recently been made by the licensing authorities at Scotland Yard to the London General Omnibus Company by passing a type of vehicle with a much lower road clearance than has been previously demanded?

Mr. HENDERSON: The Commissioner informs me that all omnibuses which have been licensed, including those of the London General Omnibus Company, comply with the regulations as to having and maintaining a 10-inch road clearance. The Regulations are of general application, and have not been altered for about two years.

Year.
Number of persons charged.
—


United Kingdom.




1913–14
…
…
…
…
14,008
Incomes exceeding £5,000.


1914–15
…
…
…
…
30,211
Incomes exceeding £3,000.


1915–16
…
…
…
…
29,465
Incomes exceeding £3,000.


1916–17
…
…
…
…
31,985
Incomes exceeding £3,000.


1917–18
…
…
…
…
35,564
Incomes exceeding £3,000.


1918–19
…
…
…
…
47,869
Incomes exceeding £2,500.


1919–20
…
…
…
…
54,526
Incomes exceeding £2,500.


1920–21 (estimates)
…
…
…
…
78,600
Incomes exceeding £2,000.


1921–22 (estimates)
…
…
…
…
90,000
Incomes exceeding £2,000.


Great Britain and Northern Ireland.




1922–23 (estimates)
…
…
…
…
85,000
Incomes exceeding £2,000.


1923–24 (estimates)
…
…
…
…
88,000
Incomes exceeding £2,000.

RUSSIAN RESIDENTS (GREAT BRITAIN).

Mr. HANNON: 80.
asked the Home Secretary how many men and women, respectively, of Russian nationality, are at present resident in this country; and, in the case of those who are wage earners, under what trade or industry are they registered?

FINANCE BILL.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. LUMLEY: 81.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any undertaking was given to him that reductions of the Entertainments Duty in the Budget would result in reductions in the price of seats to a similar amount; and, if so, if he can state how far this undertaking has been carried out?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): I cannot add anything to the replies which I gave on this subject on the 19th June.

SUPER-TAX PAYERS.

Mr. PERRY: 82.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of Super-tax payers for each year since 1914?

Mr. SNOWDEN: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

The numbers of persons charged to Super-tax in 1913–14 and subsequent years are given below. Complete statistics for the years 1920–21 to 1923–24 are not yet available, and the figures shown are provisional estimates of the ultimate numbers of liable cases:

Mr. HENDERSON: The number of Russians registered with the police in this country, at the end of March last, was 89,858, of whom 43,516 were males. I regret I cannot give the information asked for in the second part of the question, as the entries in the registers are not classified so as to show trades or industries.

Mr. HANNON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these males are employed in propagandist efforts against the interests of this country?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid I cannot.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Member say whether included in that number there are any persons who during the War served in the Army?

Mr. HENDERSON: I must have notice of that question.

GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, GRETNA AND EASTRIGGS.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 83.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the papers in which on any occasion any of the dwelling-houses in Gretna or Eastriggs have been advertised; whether he is aware that in August last the tenants were given the chance to buy their houses; that since that date all prospective tenants have been refused tenancy of the empty houses; that as people left the district the authorities have refused to re-let their houses; whether any steps have been taken, and, if so, what, to prevent the houses falling into disrepair; and whether he will now make a general statement as to the policy of the Government in respect of all these dwelling-houses?

Mr. SNOWDEN: As the answer is necessarily detailed and long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received a very large number of letters from Glasgow and neighbouring districts saying that houses are available at Gretna, and the Government will not let them. Can anything be done to enable these people to get the houses which are available?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member cannot expect me to be aware that he has received numerous letters from Glasgow. In reply to the second part of his supplementary question, I may say that that matter was dealt with by an answer some weeks ago. That answer was to this effect, that a number of these houses have been offered for sale to tenants and many
houses have been sold. The property is up for auction next week and, obviously, it would be to the detriment of the value of the property if now we were to let houses and the sale was encumbered by such conditions.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment on the first available opportunity next week.

Following is the answer:

As regards the first part of the hon. Member's question, the properties at Gretna and Eastriggs, including the dwelling-houses, have been extensively advertised for disposal in the London, Scottish, local, provincial and trade papers. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and a considerable number of the tenants have, in fact, bought their houses. As regards parts three and four of the question, it was not considered advisable, in the public interest, in view of the impending sale by auction of the dwelling-houses, to create fresh tenancies. As regards the fifth part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan on the 16th June. As regards the last part of the question, the policy of the Government is to sell these dwelling-houses, and they will be offered for sale by public auction at Carlisle next month.

MILITARY TRAINING, GERMANY.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any data are available as to the approximate number of Germans belonging to the so-called patriotic societies, and whether he is aware that the members of these societies are regularly instructed under expert leaders in various forms of military drill?

Mr. PONSONBY: It is at present impossible to form a reliable estimate of the numbers and quality of the young men receiving military training, nor has it been possible to check the reported strengths of the various societies.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are these English or German patriotic societies?

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Member aware that the German Prime Minister has stated in public that Germany will require at least 150,000 trained men in addition to the 100,000 men they are entitled to have under the Treaty of Versailles?

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: Has the hon. Member received any report from Berlin on the subject?

Mr. PONSONBY: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the question mean societies in this country or in Germany? We are entitled to know.

BUILDING TRADE DISPUTE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make with reference to the present crisis in the building industry?

Mr. SHAW: I would refer the hon. Member to my statement in the House on Monday last. I am not in a position to make any further statement in the matter at this moment.

FRENCH AND BRITISH PRIME MINISTERS (CHEQUERS MEETING).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is able to make any statement to the House with reference to his recent meeting with the French Premier?

Mr. CLYNES: I would refer the hon. Member to the full statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Monday last to which I have nothing to add.

Captain BENN: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the alleged interview with M. Herriot on the subject of the agreement come to between him and the Prime Minister?

Mr. CYLNES: I have seen reports of it in the Press

Captain BENN: Is it correct

VINEGAR.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the sale of liquids or products made in imitation of and purporting to be vinegar.
This is a short but exceedingly necessary Bill to fix a standard of quality for vinegar. It is one of the defects of the Food and Drugs Act in this country that no provision has been made for fixing the standard of vinegar, and as vinegar, in spite of its peculiar quality, is a necessary article in the households of this country, there is a constant danger that large numbers of poor people will be defrauded by purchasing an inferior article. The object of the Bill is to fix a standard compelling the vendor, whether whole sale or retail, to sell to the public, as pure vinegar or malt vinegar, vinegar brewed in accordance with the principles for the making of malt vinegar. This Bill proposes to define malt vinegar and imitation vinegar. Malt vinegar is that which is a brewed product prepared by the alcoholic and subsequent acetous fermentation of barley or some other cereal, the starch of which has been converted by malt. Imitation vinegar, with which, no doubt, hon. Members of this House are familiar, is prepared by diluting commercial acetic acid, staining it and fermenting it so as to make it resemble as near as possible pure vinegar. Sometimes sulphuric and other deleterious acids are put into vinegar in order to give it greater acidity.
In many cases the poorer people in purchasing vinegar do not ask for malt vinegar or pure vinegar, but for "vinegar," and under an unscrupulous salesman the possibility is that they get some of this imitation commodity. It is to protect these poor people who use vinegar, and who at present have no protection, that I ask leave to introduce this Bill. The Bill is exceedingly simple and follows, in the main, the principles which have been already adopted under similar legislation in the United States if America, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia and Canada, namely, provisions for defining what vinegar really is, provisions for the labeling of vinegar so that the public will not be deceived, the fixation of penalties for the violation of the law, and arranging procedure in relation to offences under the Act.
There are two important public documents which relate to the sale to the public of impure vinegar. One of these was the very valuable Report prepared by Dr. Hamill, of the Local Government Board, in 1908, after an exhaustive inquiry as to the conditions under which vinegar was being sold. In this Report he points out that vinegar lends itself peculiarly to being imitated, and when imitated it really becomes a dangerous drug. That Report, which hon. Members can consult for themselves, says:
Acetic acid obtained from ordinary commercial sources is largely used in the manufacture of vinegar intended to simulate as nearly as possible vinegar which has been produced by the fermentation process.
It goes on to say that acetic acid is imported into this country in large quantities from Germany and Holland. It would be most unfortunate if acetic acid, imported into this country in large quantities, is to be converted into imitation vinegar and sold to the public to their detriment without their having any protection under the law. I can hardly conceive the House of Commons tolerating an anomaly of this kind any longer. Still more recently an inquiry took place under the Profiteering Act, when a recommendation was made on the same subject, and one of the Sub-Committees on Trust, in Command Paper 1355 of 1921, pointed out that
The fact that brewed vinegar costs twice as Bauch as unbrewed vinegar results in unbrewed vinegar being sold by dealers at a margin of profit much greater than that which is made on brewed vinegar.
Human nature being what it is, you will find unscrupulous persons who are prepared to sell the unbrewed vinegar at a large profit. This Bill seeks to prevent the unhappy purchaser from exploitation of this character. The Bill itself consists of nine very short, simple Clauses. It first seeks to define what vinegar is, what distilled vinegar is, and what fermentation vinegar is. It then lays down the conditions under which labels are to be attached to the glasses or bottles or other vessels in which vinegar is sold. Then it prescribes penalties, and finally defines the procedure under which action is to be taken. This Bill really fills an important gap in the legislation relating to the purity of the food of the people. In the absence of a standard of vinegar you cannot bring a prosecution against an unscrupulous vendor, and I am sure that
the House, when it reflects on this fact, will have no hesitation in allowing this Bill to be introduced.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hannon, Mr. John Harris, Captain O'Grady, Sir Arthur Shirley Benn, Sir Philip Dawson, Mr. Turner-Samuels, Sir Grattan Doyle, and Mr. Smedley Crooke.

VINEGAR BILL,

"to prevent the fraudulent sale of liquids or products made in imitation of anti purporting to be vinegar," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 180.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Great Western Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords],

London and North Eastern Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords],

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords],

Southern Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [Lords],

Hackney and New College Bill [Lords],

Lancashire Asylums Board Bill [Lords],

London County Council (Money) Bill,

Spencer Settled Chattels Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendment; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report.

Special Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Tynemouth Water Charges) Bill,

Reported [Provisional Order not proceeded with], from the Local Legislation Committee: Report to lie upon the Table.

Haslingden Corporation Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP E).

Sir JOHN BRUNNER reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Friday, 4th July, at Eleven of the Clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

MR. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Captain Sidney Herbert; and had appointed in substitution: Major Ropner.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

West Indian Islands (Telegraph) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to alter and increase the rates, tolls, and dues leviable by the Neath Harbour Commissioners; and for other purposes." [Neath Harbour Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Birmingham in regard to the construction of tramways, new streets, and street improvements, and other matters; and for other purposes." [Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Taf Fechan Water Supply Board to construct additional water-
works; and for other purposes." [Taf Fechan Water Supply Bill [Lords.]

Neath Harbour Bill [Lords],

Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords],

Taf Fechan Water Supply Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. ENTWISTLE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient in connection with pensions payable to persons to whom the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1919, apply to authorise the provision out of moneys provided by Parliament of such further sums as will become payable as a consequence of providing that, for the purpose of determining the weekly rate of pension to which a person is entitled, there shall be deducted from his means as calculated under the said Acts such part, if any, of the means, but not exceeding in any case thirty-nine pounds, as is derived from any source other than earnings."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

Captain W. BENN: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is competent in any form for a Member of this House to move either an Amendment, or a reasoned declaratory Amendment, which would be intended to bring this Resolution into conformity with the pledges which many of us have given to our constituents?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It will not be in order to move any Amendment which goes outside the detailed terms of this Resolution. I cannot answer the question of the hon. Member as a hypothetical question, but if he submits a specific Amendment I will rule on it.

Captain BENN: Will you rule that we have either to accept this Resolution as moved by the Government or vote against it, and that there is no power to amend it so as to extend it?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a question which has been raised before. Whatever criticism may be made on the form of the Resolution, that does not affect the rules and procedure of the House, and I think that the point raised by the hon. Member has arisen on previous occasions.

Mr. MARLEY: Is it possible to construct an Amendment to cover all the pledges that have been given by all hon. Members to their constituents?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): The Financial
Resolution which I now submit to the Committee is in fulfilment of pledges which have been given by all parties in this House. In the Election Manifesto issued by hon. Members below the Gangway prior to the last General Election they said:
The thrift disqualification attached to old age pensions should be immediately removed. Liberal policy concentrates upon lifting from the homes of the poor those burdens and anxieties of the old, the sick, and the widow with young children which the community has the power and the duty to relieve.
The Labour party were much more general in their Election pledges. Referring to this matter, they said:
When Labour rules"—
which, unfortunately, is not the case to-day—

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Why not?

Mr. SNOWDEN: —
it will take care that little children shall not needlessly die;…it will make generous provision for the aged people.
It will be remembered that this matter was also dealt with in the Election Manifesto of the Unionist party, which said:
The solution of the Unemployment problem is the key to every necessary social reform, but I should like to repeat my conviction that we should aim at the reorganisation of our various schemes of insurance against old age, ill-health and unemployment.
Then follows this sentence:
More particularly should we devote our attention to investigating the possibilities of getting rid of the inconsistencies and the discouragement of thrift at present associated with the working of the Old Age Pensions Act.
Reference was made to this Election promise in the King's Speech submitted by the late Government at the opening of this Parliament:
Bills will be introduced to improve the position of pre-War pensioners, and to deal with the discouragement of thrift involved in the present means limitation to the grant of old age pensions.
4.0 P.M.
When we succeeded the late Government and first met the House of Commons, the Prime Minister, it will be remembered, made a statement of our legislative programme, and, referring to this, he said:
They"—
referring to the late Government—
also promised a probationary system of dealing with offenders, and Bills were to be
introduced to amend and consolidate the Factories and Workshops Act, and certain Bills relating to the subject of legitimisation and also Bills to improve the position of pre-War pensioners, and to deal with the discouragement of thrift involved in the present means limitation in the grant of old age pensions.
And then he said:
We shall carry on the inheritance that we have received in the King's Speech, and we hope to cultivate the field a little more amply than would have been done if we had not come into office."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1924; col. 755, Vol. 169.]
The proposal that I am now submitting to the House fulfils, amply fulfils, generously fulfils, the pledge that was given by the Prime Minister in the quotation that I have just read to the House. I want the Committee to understand that we are dealing now with what has come to be known as the thrift disqualification. That is a question upon which the Unionist party and the Liberal party are committed by their election pledges and upon which the Cabinet is committed by the pledge given by the Prime Minister. There is, as I said upon another question the other day, a great deal of ambiguity and indefiniteness in the use of the term "means limit." The hon Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Edwards) introduced a private Member's Motion on this question in the early part of the present Session of Parliament. It referred to the abolition of the means limit, but the whole of the hon. Member's speech and the whole of the speeches made in the Debate were directed and directed only to removing the hardship under the present scheme of old age pensions upon people who have been thrifty and have saved a moderate sum in prospect of old age.

Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: I quoted particularly in my speech the recommendation of the Treasury Committee recommending the abolition of the means limit altogether. I specifically quoted those three recommendations.

Mr. SNOWDEN: That does not in the least invalidate what I said just now. It is perfectly true that the hon. Member did that, but what I say was that the whole of his speech was devoted to quoting hardships which were inflicted upon and were suffered by old people under the present law. There is a very real difference between the abolition of the means
limit and the removal of the present thrift disqualification. If words have a meaning at all, the words "removal of the means limit" mean universal pensions. They mean that in granting a pension the person's means shall not be taken into consideration at all. In other words, that any person who produces a birth certificate to prove that he or she has reached the age of 70 without further evidence or inquiry shall be entitled to an old-age pension. It means, of course, that pensions would be given to millionaires and to Dukes. They would be given to persons who do not need them, who do not want them, and I might add in some cases who do not deserve them. The case for universal old age pensions is not really logical. I can imagine circumstances where universal old age pensions might be justified. If the country had means to squander and it knew of no other purpose to which they could be devoted, then it might give old age pensions to these Dukes and millionaires.

Captain BENN: How many Dukes are there?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Twenty-two.

Captain BENN: Over 70?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I should think that the longevity among dukes is very high, unfortunately for me as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The abolition of the means limit, which means universal old age pensions, is advocated on the ground that that would remove all inquisitorial inquiry into the means of a person. I admit that there is something in that, and, if we had those abundant means which I supposed a moment ago, then, no doubt, realising the force of that contention, the House of Commons might adopt a scheme of universal old age pensions. The hon. Member for Accrington referred to the recommendations of the Treasury Committee upon old age pensions. I think I am correct in saying that most of the recommendations of that Committee have been carried into effect. In one or two instances we have gone beyond them. But what the hon. Member did not say just now is very important as bearing upon this question of the abolition of the means limit. They said that the recommendation of the abolition of the means limit
was dependent upon the Treasury being able to afford it. The practical objection is just that—the cost. The abolition of the means limit and the granting of universal old age pensions would cost at once £18,000,000 a year.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Additional?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Additional, of course, and that would rise rapidly to £29,000,000 a year. The House will be interested to know that the cost of old age pensions is rising very rapidly, owing to a fact which is most embarrassing to an impecunious Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, the increasing longevity of the people. I said that only in my capacity as Chancellor of the Exchequer; on every other ground I welcome it. This rapid rise—and we shall have to look forward to it for the next 20 years—is also due to the fact that two generations ago there was an extraordinarily high birth rate, and the people who were born during those years and have survived will reach the age eligible for old age pensions between now and 20 years hence. I informed the Committee just now that the immediate cost of universal old age pensions would be £18,000,000 a year, rising to £29,000,000 a year. The cost of old age pensions this year is £24,000,000, in 1930 it will have risen to £27,000,000, in 1940 to £35,000,000 and in 1945 to £40,000,000. That is to say, in 20 years' time the cost of the universal scheme would be £69,000,000 a year if we maintained the present age limit of 70 and also the maximum payment of 10s. per week. I would ask the Committee to remember that figure of £69,000,000 and also that we are finding this year £67,000,000 for war pensions. The cost of universal old age pensions is therefore prohibitive.
In attacking this problem we are bound to have regard, not only to the present cost of social services, but to the automatic increase in the present cost, and also to the cost of new social services to which all parties in the House are more or less committed. Therefore, the problem that I had to face was this: How to translate into a scheme the pledges of the other two political parties and the pledge of the Prime Minister to deal with this thrift disqualification. At the outset I was met by the difficulty, to which I have already referred, of defining
and limiting the term "thrift disqualification." What is thrift? What is the limit of income which may be said to be a reward of thrift? I have to confess that I have put that question to a great number of people, and their replies have not been helpful. I have had some people who said, "Well, everything that a man accumulates is thrift." I have had other people who said, "Ah, well, say £5 a week or £10 a week." Other people have been much more moderate in their definition of the reward of thrift. However, I have been helped to a conclusion by the history of this demand for the abolition of the thrift disqualification. I was in the House, and I believe my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), juvenile as he still looks, was in the House when the Liberal party first introduced the Old Age Pensions Bill. The hon. and gallant Member will remember that this question was raised during that Debate, and the Labour party, which was very small in number in those clays, urged that any income by way of old age allowances from friendly societies or trades unions should be excluded from the calculation of means of the old age pensioner. Ever since then the strength of this general demand has gathered its force from the feeling of injustice amongst this class of people. That is the problem, in a somewhat broader aspect, that I have set myself to deal with by the proposals now before the Committee.
There was this further consideration to be taken into account. Some would-be reformers of Old Age Pensions have suggested it would be possible to discriminate as between means resulting from various kinds of thrift, and to eliminate certain of them, as, for instance, what some of them regard as the greater virtue of communal thrift—the thrift associated with friendly societies or trade unions as compared with the thrift, sometimes described as selfish, on the part of the man who makes provision for his old age by investments either in property or in some other way. I am convinced that no distinction ought to 'be made, and that the scheme should cover every-kind of thrift. In the circumstances I have also been forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to devise any workable scheme discriminating satisfactorily
between thrift and benevolence. What am I doing about benevolence? I am aware that in the calculation of means of persons applying for pensions the inclusion of gifts from sons or relatives or employers has given rise to a good deal of irritation and a good deal of indignation. These are in the nature of benevolent gifts, and under the Resolution which I now submit they would, up to a certain amount, be entirely excluded in calculating the pension.
I suggest that under this Resolution the existing basis of calculation of means will be continued. In other words I am not interfering in the slightest degree with the existing Acts, but my proposal is rather superadded to the existing scheme. I am proposing, as hon. Members who have seen the White Paper will understand, to make an addition of 15s. per week when derived from sources other than earnings to the 10s. per week which at present may be derived from any source, without reducing the pension from the full 10s. a week. In the case of a single man I propose to allow 15s., and 30s. in the case of a married couple. In other words the existing scale will stand, but I propose that in addition a sum of 30s. per week, if it is derived from thrift or benevolence, is to be ignored in calculating the means of the married couple. Such a couple, whose income is 50s. a week, will be entitled to a joint pension of £1 a week. In the case of a single person the figures are halved, and if his or her income is 25s. a week he or she will be entitled to the full pension of 10s per week under like conditions as to the source of income. The graded scales at present in existence will continue to operate up to the joint income of nearly £3 10s. per week in the case of a married couple, and nearly 35s. per week in the case of a single person.
If hon. Members who are in possession of the White Paper will turn to it for a moment I propose to take one or two cases showing how my scheme will work. I will take the second illustration given on page 3. Here you have an old married couple drawing a superannuation allowance of 25s. a week. That couple have also saved enough to bring them in £1 per week, and it may be that from small gifts from friends or by doing small jobs, or by working a little allotment they get
a further income of 5s. per week. That couple will get an old age pension of £1 per week.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to earnings on allotments or otherwise, but do not earnings disqualify the applicant?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right—I have taken the wrong example, but these are cases where a certain amount from earning will not invalidate the receipt of a pension. A married man would of course be barred from receiving a full pension if he earned anything above 20s. a week. I am glad of that interruption because it gives me an opportunity of saying this, that I have expressly excluded earnings I do not think it right to do anything to encourage earnings by individuals above 70 years of age. If a man has not earnings approaching the figure I have just given he will be enabled to get something as the "original scale" will still be operative. Take the case of a single individual given on the same page lower down. There you have the assumption that the man is earning 12s. a week and he gets 5s. 6d. weekly as a benevolent allowance. Under the present law his rate of pension is 2s. per week. Under our proposal 5s. 6d. per week would be deducted in calculating the means, which would then be taken at 12s. per week, and the rate of pension would be 8s. per week; only 5s. 6d. and not 15s. would be deducted here as the means other than earnings only amount to that sum. The reason why that man would not get a full pension is because the greater part of his income is derived from earnings.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The whole of the earnings are taken into account.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes, they are. Take another case on page 4. There you have the case of a married couple whose income from earnings represent, 20s. a week, from property 10s., and from a benevolent allowance 6s., or a total income of 36s, per week. Under the present law the rate of pension is 2s. per week, but under this new scheme each of them will be entitled to the full pension of 10s. per week. Under the existing law if a single person has an income exceeding £26 per year he is not entitled to draw the full pension, and in the case of married couples the
income is divided so that where the joint income is £26 per year each would be credited with £13 per year, and they would get the full pension. The bottom illustration on page 4 represents a most extreme case. It is assumed there that the earnings are £2 per week. I have put the income from property at 22s. per week, giving a total income of 62s. per week. In that case no pension would be payable, and I am prepared to justify that, because I do not think we are doing a good thing in paying pensions to a man who is earning £2 a week; I do not want to subsidise wages.
That is how my scheme will operate in practice. But I would like to give one further illustration. When my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury introduced the Resolution dealing with pre-War pensions a few weeks ago, it was severely criticised on the ground of its lack of generosity, and when I spoke in the second Debate on that Resolution, I asked hon. Members to withhold their criticisms until they saw our proposals for dealing with old age pensions. I ventured then to anticipate that what we were proposing would be a very substantial relief to a large number of these pre-War pensioners who are over the age of 70. Let me take the case of a married couple. The man has a pre-War pension of £60 per year. His increased pension is for the purposes of old age pension under the existing scheme, divided into two, and neither of the couple would, consequently, be entitled to a pension. Under my scheme they would get the full pension of £1 per week, thereby raising their pre-War pension by a further £52 a year.
This new scheme will remove every reasonable grievance The population over 70 years of age is 1,600,000. The number of old age pensioners is just under 1,000,000—to be precise, 917,000. Of those 917,000, 854,000 are in receipt of the full pension. There are only 63,000 who do not get the full pension, and it may interest the Committee to know that the average pension for these 63,000 is 6s. a week. My proposal will raise the bulk of those 63,000 limited pensions to the full rate. But, of course, it will do a great deal more than that. As I have said, the population over 70 years of age is 1,600,000. Of those who are not pensioners the number of occupied people
over 70, with their wives, is estimated as 383,000. That includes people in business and their wives, well-to-do people and those of the manual labour class who are still sufficiently active to be able to continue their occupation. There are estimated to be 200,000 unoccupied people over the age of 70, and those include, as every Member of the Committee would naturally assume, a very large percentage of well-to-do and even of rich people. I am not dealing with the occupied classes. They do not come at all into the question of dealing with the abolition of thrift disqualification. Of the 300,000 unoccupied persons and their wives who are over the age of 70, my proposal will give a pension to about 173,000, I estimate. Those left outside, obviously, include people of very considerable means.

Mr. VIVIAN: That will bring the total of pensioners to what figure?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The number of pensioners is 917,000 now. If you add 173,000, you bring the total up to 1,090,000. This proposal meets every reasonable grievance. I do not think that anyone can complain of the lack of generosity in a scheme which is going to add to an income of 50s. a week a State pension of £1 a week. As to the cost, estimates are necessarily to some extent rather hazardous. The data on which the Government Actuary has to estimate is to some extent very hypothetical. However, I think that on the whole the Estimates may be taken as approximately accurate. The Estimate is that the cost of this scheme in the first full year will be about £4,150,000, and it will continue to rise and in a few years' time will reach £7,000,000.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: When will it start?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It will start as soon as the House of Commons will give it an opportunity to start; the scheme will come into operation as soon as the Bill receives the King's Assent. But the right hon. Gentleman knows that there will be a good deal of administrative work to be done. I put forward this proposal in no sense as a final and complete settlement of the problem of old age pensions. In this scheme I have dealt with that aspect of it involved in the grievance of disqualification of thrift. With that I submit that I have dealt not
only adequately but generously. The whole problem of social insurance is in a chaotic state. There is no co-ordination. I am sure that, whatever Government is in office within the next few years, it cannot avoid overhauling the whole system of national insurance. I have at this Box, on more than one occasion, stated, without, however, giving any definite pledge, that we hope as soon as possible to be able to introduce a Measure dealing with that very urgent matter. I am glad to be able to inform the Committee that we have had our experts considering this question, and that very considerable progress has been made with their inquiries. I am hoping that before very long—I do not know whether we shall be able to introduce it this year or not; that will depend upon Parliamentary opportunity—I shall be able to submit to the House a scheme on a new basis which will deal with mothers' pensions and at the same time will provide means by which the age for old age pensions can be reduced, say, to 65. I do not submit this scheme as a final settlement. It is no use hon. Members of the Liberal party taunting me or the Government with our platform and propagandist speeches.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the Motion which his party has put down year after year in this House—a Motion which this proposal does not fulfil?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. and gallant Member will have an opportunity of dealing with that subject in the course of the speech which I presume he intends to make, and I shall have an opportunity of replying to him. I submit that this is a fulfilment of the Government's pledges and it is a fulfilment of the pledges of the Liberal party. It is a fulfilment, an ample fulfilment, of the pledge given by the Unionist party at the last Election. I do not care anything about the hon. and gallant Member taunting us with the Resolutions that have been put forward in this House in years gone by. I am very much more concerned about the benefit, the really substantial benefit, which is to be given to nearly 250,000 old people in this country. That benefit, so long delayed, will be conceded by the terms of the Resolution which I now submit.

Captain Viscount CURZON: May I ask one question? Will Supplementary Estimate be necessary in order to effect this change?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: At the beginning of his interesting speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted with some care the various election addresses of the three parties, and if that was in order to show that all parties in the House share a common desire to find some way of modifying or removing the disqualifications which now exist in the Old Age Pensions Act, I agree with him, for there is no doubt that the present disqualifications do militate against thrift. The fact that a man has subscribed to a friendly society or has saved money and bought his house, or, perhaps, has answered the appeals to be a patriot and has bought War Savings Certificates—the fact that that should disqualify him for a pension is an anti-social act. The State ought to encourage that form of thrift and ought never to allow it to be a bar against old age pensions. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman quoted those election addresses for, I think he is probably preaching to the converted, for all parties have had that in their programmes for some time. The right hon. Gentleman was a little chary with his quotations, all the same. He said that the Resolution was amply and generously fulfilling the pledges given by the Prime Minister. He referred to one pledge only, the pledge that the Prime Minister gave early in the Session. He did not hike any notice of the various Resolutions which the Labour party has brought forward in the last three Parliaments. I am not sore that he himself voted for them.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was more cautious. I thought he had some sort of inkling of what they would cost. I see now that the caution has come later on, when the full facts are before him. Just for the matter of record, it might be worth while for the Committee to remember what the Resolution was. I am reading it from a very authentic document, a document which right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite no doubt recognise. It is said to be
A speaker's handbook, designed in the main to provide the active workers in the
Labour movement with the necessary powder and shot to enable them more effectively to carry on their fight.
It records the Motion which has been proposed by the Labour party three, if not four, times, as follows:
That in the opinion of this House the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Old Age Pensions in favour of the repeal of the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act as to qualification by means should be adopted and the Old Age Pensions Act amended accordingly, thereby enabling applicants for and recipients of old age pensions to derive the full benefit of their thrift and provision for old age, and to receive assistance from friends, employers and organisations without reduction of or disqualification for the full pension.
That is the Motion. It is not carried out by the proposal made to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that it is. Let me pursue the matter for a moment. The present Home Secretary explained on the platform what the policy of the Labour party was. He said in Newcastle on 30th November last:
They (the Labour party) would see that the obtaining of money from any other source would not affect pensions in any way.
Is that the proposal of the Chancellor? Not at all! The right hon. Gentleman just now had to admit that all earnings are taken into account. But the proposal of the Home Secretary was that no matter where the money came from, whatever the income, whether from savings or from earnings, the recipients of old-age pensions should not have anything knocked off their pensions. That was his proposal; that was what he put before the electors in November last. I am sorry the President of the Board of Trade is not here, because he also explained to the electors what the Labour party's policy was. He said:
He would press again for the payment of old age pensions of the full 10s. irrespective of any savings a man had.
That is not the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. I do not know whether the President of the Board of Trade has been pressing the right hon. Gentleman on the matter. Did the President of the Board of Trade press the right hon. Gentleman at yesterday's meeting?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I will give the right hon. Baronet a lot more useful information.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: That is quite enough for my purpose. I do not wish to overload the case at all. I wanted to see what was the Labour party's policy as put to the electors, upon which they got votes from the electors, and I wanted to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer slated he was now carrying out the policy which he put before the electors.

Mr. SNOWDEN: indicated assent.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Therein the right hon. Gentleman differs from both the Home Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade. They have stated that what they meant was a full and complete leaving alone of any income, whether derived from savings or from earnings, and this Resolution does not do anything of the sort. It is well known why that proposal was made. It was in order to get rid of the inquisitorial inquiry into means. That is the reason which has been given over and over again. You do not get rid a this inquisitorial inquiry by the Chancellor's proposal. That inquiry goes on just as it did before. The pensions officer will make the same inquiries, except that he will have to make one more—what is the income, and does it come from earnings or savings? If it comes from earnings, then one course will be taken; if it comes from savings, another course will be taken. There is still, unfortunately, a differentiation between those who have saved and those who have not saved. The right hon. Gentleman tried to give a definition of thrift. I share his difficulty in that respect. I do not think it is possible. But this is certain: you have to inquire now whether a man has been thrifty or has not. If he has been saving beyond a certain point, then he is to be penalised for doing so. I only say so because I think it necessary that hon. Members should realise that this matter is not finished. This is not the real solution. The Chancellor quite properly said that whatever party might be ruling this country in the next few years, this question would have to be dealt with.
I believe it has to be dealt with, and I only wish the Chancellor had been able to say something more about what is probably the real solution, namely, the introduction of some comprehensive form of insurance under which the test will be: Has a man contributed or has he not;
if he has, let him have benefit without any inquiry of any sort. [HON. MEMBERS: "And reduce the benefits!"] Hon. Members cannot have thought over the question if they make that suggestion. There is no question of reducing benefits. The State to-day is making a contribution of millions to the various forms of insurance. What is wanted is a better grouping of benefits, so that the restrictions can be cut out and a simple test applied for those who are entitled to receive benefits. I believe there is a great possibility open for the re-arrangement of benefits, without any attempt to transfer from the State to the individual any of the cost now borne by the State. The Chancellor, notwithstanding the prior history of his party and the Election promises of his colleagues, has come up against the facts. He has told its that this is going to cost at once in a full year an additional £4,000,000, rising to £7,000,000, so that pensions, when this is passed, will be costing £28,000,000 per year, rising in 20 years to £47,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman has examined the alternative of striking out the means limit altogether, and he has pointed out that it would mean an expenditure of £41,000,000 at once, rising to £69,000,000. I agree with him there is no justification for a universal old age pension at a cost to the State of such a large sum, because the money could only be raised by a further tax upon the unemployed or by causing a great many others to become unemployed. I intend, therefore, to support the Chancellor in his Resolution. I do so, pending the more complete and comprehensive proposals of insurance generally which, I agree with him, will have to be brought in by whatever Government may be in power, and in the hope that in these more comprehensive proposals we shall find some way of getting rid of the inquiries which have now to be made and of substituting for them a more simple and universal test.

Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I ask leave of the Committee to take a part in this discussion, which to me is peculiarly interesting. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, referring just now to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), said they were both in the House 16 years ago when my right hon. Friend the Leader
of the Liberal party, who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer and had just been elevated to the position of Prime Minister, introduced his final Budget. That date is peculiarly interesting to me, because it is the date on which I was introduced for the first time to this House as representative of the constituency which I have had the honour of representing ever since, and the very first formal vote I had to give was in favour of the Old Age Pension scheme, the announcement of which was comprised in that very important Budget. But my interest in this great question has been much closer and deeper than that. It was my responsibility and privilege to be a member of the Departmental Committee which considered this question. There were five Members of Parliament on that Committee, and I think only two are now in the House—the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and myself. We both voted then for the majority report, which was distinctly and absolutely in favour of universal pensions. I took that position advisedly and after the fullest consideration. I have held it ever since, and I hold it to-day.
We discussed every aspect of the question which has been so effectively submitted to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; we viewed every possible way of facing the difficulty of the means limit, the very point to which the right hon. Gentleman has been referring; we approached the question from every avenue and listened to every argument, and we were forced to the conclusion that there was no possible way out of the problem but by granting universal old-age pensions. That was in 1919, but the principle which applies to-day is exactly the same. Although the pension has gone up to 10s. weekly, the principle remains the same. I am trying to put the matter from a non-party standpoint, and I honestly say I regard this as such a vital matter to the poor that I, for one, do not care from what party it comes, as long as the welfare of the poor is promoted. Therefore, I am glad this Resolution has been proposed. It does not go as far as I want but it goes a long way and, so far as it goes, I am grateful for it and gladly accept it. Our position on the Committee to which I have referred was put very clearly and it was that the existence of the means limit branded the Old Age Pension as a com passionate grant. We stated then, and?
stand by it still, that the pension should be a civic right and not a compassionate grant, and that the inclusion in an applicant's means—by reason of which he might lose his right to pension—of certain kinds of income, injuriously affects thrift, benevolence and industry. All that has happened since only confirms the view in my mind that there is no final way out of this difficulty except by means of universal pensions. The Committee also considered that the inquiries essential to the system caused a certain amount of irritation, I would put it even more strongly, that they cause a great amount of irritation which is very disastrous, in my view, to the stability of the nation. I signed the Report of that Committee, and I stand by it. A Motion was introduced in this House last year to which reference has been made. It was moved by one of the friends of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I cannot better the expression which was used by the Mover of that Resolution when he said:
We are merely asking that everyone who attains the age of 70 years and desires a pension shall have it without investigation into what his means are."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1923; col. 1159, Vol. 160.]
5.0 P.M.
After all the arguments put before us on the Committee to which I have referred, I am convinced there is no other way out of this problem without causing all kinds of inconsistencies and injustice. There is no other way of avoiding this inquisitorial investigation, which, of all things, is the thing I most desire to get rid of. I had hopes possibly not for the whole, but for something further than the Chancellor is proposing to-day, because of the Resolution submitted to the House last year. Unfortunately I was then at home ill, but if I had been here I should, at any rate have voted for it, and my hon. Friend and colleague the Chief Whip of the Liberal party did vote for it, and spoke upon it. While, therefore, we are justified in supporting the proposal, it seems to me to come with rather bad grace from the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and now gone out, for the reason that his party moved an Amendment to the Motion, and carried it, in consequence of which the Motion itself was lost. My friends voted for that Motion, and voted for it, I understand, with all the, responsibility that
naturally ensued. I would ask hon. Members above the Gangway to remember that every leader of their party, as well as all the rank and file, voted too. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and all the other Members did the same, and the impression formed on my mind by that vote was that the Labour party was absolutely committed to the idea of universal pensions, which I, for one, have supported all these years by reason of my being a member of the Committee.
Personally, I should be only too glad to hear from the Chancellor that his position is this—I am going to put the position I would like him to take up—that while at present, owing to the financial position, he does not find it possible to grant all we desire, yet when the financial conditions improve, he is perfectly prepared to grant the full thing for which we have asked. That is a position which would be perfectly consistent, it seems to me, with the course taken last year, by which I stand, because I am absolutely convinced that we can never relieve the anxieties of these old people except by a Measure of universal pensions. I know it is said that this is merely sentimental, but, personally, having given the matter all the consideration of which I am capable, I entirely deny that. In my view, it is the greatest common-sense proposal we can possibly have. Fear is certainly an incentive to thrift, but hope is an infinitely greater incentive. The man who is frightened is robbed of his power of doing his best, but the man who knows beforehand that when he arrives at 70 years of age, and when his physical powers are failing, all his efforts will be to his own advantage, that they will not be used against him, will be inspired and encouraged to greater energy and greater thrift than he has ever manifested before.
I want to see our people inspired by that ideal, that when old age conies there is a certainty that what they have earned and saved they will get the benefit of, and the State will come in, additionally, with the civic pension to which they are entitled. I think the State ought to re- ward thrift, and not penalise it. Holding that view strongly, and having spoken in its favour on every platform up and down the country, and in my party exercised all the influence I possess in that direction,
while I am thankful for what is being done, and while we shall support the Chancellor's Bill, we recognise that this is only a stepping-stone to something bigger and something larger, and we look forward with hope and confidence, whether it comes from the Labour party, or the Liberal party, or even from the Torty party, I do not care from whom it comes, so long as we get the benefit for the old folk of this land.

Mr. CLIMIE: I am old enough to remember the struggles that we had previous to 1908 to try to get the political parties of those days to adopt the principle of old age pension, and I remember—I think it was 1906—when we were fighting a General Election, and while every political party expressed the deepest sympathy with old age pensions, their one feeling was that no money could be found to give us old age pensions. That was always the complaint—money could not be found. Well, the Liberal party did, in 1908, find the money, and the amount they found was 5s. a week for a man when he reached 70 years of age. From that date onwards, whenever I could, I was agitating and trying to convince politicians that 5s. a week was too little to give to our old people who had been employed in the industries of this country. The question, of course, was, Where would you find the money? We had a War, and we found a lot of money for that, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bringing forward his Budget, had to find £305,000,000 for interest on War Debt. He had to find £45,000,000 for a Sinking Fund for that War Debt, and still he has a difficulty in finding smile £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 more to-day to wipe out the means limit with regard to old age pensions.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Where does the hon. Member get his £12,000,000?

Mr. CLIMIE: I understood the Chancellor to say that if he were entirely to abolish the means limit, it would cost £18,000,000, as against the £7,000,000 this is costing.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member is confusing two things. What I said was that the initial cost of abolishing the means limit would be £18,000,000 for the first year, rising to £29,000,000. My
scheme is going to cost, in the first full year, £4,150,000, and after that £7,000,000.

Mr. CLIMIE: That makes a difference of about £21,000,000. I stand corrected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; one cannot grasp every point in the course of a Debate. I want to say, quite frankly, that if I had to choose be teen a universal pension and reducing the age to 65 years, so that we could bring in a larger number of old people, then I would much rather bring in the greater number of old people at 65 than have the universal pension. I recognise, of course, the great difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in trying to find the money, hut the Chancellor of the Exchequer fund the money—that is the point—to pay the interest and Sinking Fund on War Debt. I know he is in favour of a Capital Levy. I am not going to enter into that, but I simply point out that he found the money without a Capital Levy, to pay the interest and Sinking Fund on War Debt. I wish he could have seen his way to find the money to give us what he has given us to-day, and, at the same time, reduced the age to 65 years. While I, personally, have on every occasion during the two elections that I have fought declared definitely in favour of the complete abolition of the inquisitorial investigations that take place, I am grateful for what the Chancellor has done to-day, but I wish I could get some promise from him, though I am afraid it would be impossible to get it.
The proposals he is bringing in to-day, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, do not do away with these inquisitorial investigations. Although the Chancellor has raised the limit for a single person to £39, and for married couples to £78, so far as I can see, unless he is able to devise sonic means whereby the investigation can be obviated, the Inland Revenue officer will still require to go to the old age pensioner and ask how much she has in the co-operative society, what she is getting from her son or daughter, or to ask the man what he is receiving from his friendly society, and so on. I am against those questions being asked. I know the difficulties of making universal pensions. I am not able to propose a scheme to the Chancellor, but I want, somehow, that people when they reach the age at which we are going to give them a pension can go to the post office, can register to become
entitled to the pension by age, and, whatever investigations may be required, they will be reduced to the very lowest possible minimum. I am not getting what I want, not by a long, long way. I, frankly, am in favour of reducing the age to 60 years. I think that when a man has worked until he is fit to work no longer, so long as he has been steady, sober—

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): The hon. Member cannot argue in favour of reducing the pensionable age to 60 or 65 years. That is not in order on this Resolution. He can say he is in favour of it, but he must not argue it.

Mr. CLIMIE: Well, I will not argue it. I take it that the Committee will agree with me on the subject, and I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in favour of that. I have advocated it, as I say, in every election speech that. I have made, and I have advocated also the abolition of the means limit.

Mr. PHILLIPPS: It does not require any courage to do that.

Mr. CLIMIE: No, but it requires some courage for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring forward the Resolution he has brought forward to-day. The hon. Member's party never brought it forward, nor did the Conservative party. At the same time, there is no harm in me telling the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I am sorry he has not been able to do more in this way, and that I am going to support his Resolution, if it comes to a vote, with the sure knowledge that when he can find the money, which I hope he will be able to do when he introduces his next Budget, he will abolish the means limit and at the same time reduce the age.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: Several hon. Members have expressed, in no uncertain terms, their desire that politics should in no way be introduced into this subject, and have at once proceeded themselves to introduce polities and to attack one or other of the parties as delinquents in the matter, and to try and claim the credit for their own particular party. I have often said that this subject is too serious a matter for the welfare of the old people to be made the subject of party politics. This proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day has undoubtedly
disappointed a great many people in this country, and I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman himself is not satisfied with what is proposed to-day. Those who have listened to him and followed his great career know that his heart is warm towards this subject, and that we can rely upon him doing, at the very earliest opportunity, what is desired by us all. I must refer to the speech of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne), who ended up by saying that even the Tory party is now supporting this Measure. I wish he were present, but if he were I would remind him that under the ballot for private Members' Bills, in almost the first year in which I got into this House—some years longer ago than he could remember—I had the luck to get first place, and the Bill that I had the honour to introduce then was a Bill to give old age pensions of 5s. to British subjects. It met with a good deal of opposition from the party opposed to that to which I belong, and we did not carry it, but when one party tries to claim that it has introduced a subject, all I can say is that it, is then open to a counter-proposition, which can be proved by reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT, and if we did as I should like every hon. Member to do, and that is to drop any little credit we may have earned in dealing with this subject and rally round the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his endeavour to provide for this great and crying demand from our old people, we should do well. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that the modification of the thrift limit should be extended to, say, the police?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes, most certainly. I think my hon. Friend did not hear my speech, but I gave an illustration. Suppose you have a married man getting a pre-War pension of £60 a year; under the existing law, in consequence of the increase under the Pre-War Pensions Act, he would get no Old Age Pension at all. Under my scheme both he and his wife would get the full pension of 10s. a week.

Sir J. REMNANT: The right hon. Gentleman knows that in the case of the police they have contributed towards the payment of their pension. Will that be represented by earned income?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No.

Sir J. REMNANT: That will not be a question hindering them from getting the increase due to thrift under the present proposal?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is so.

Sir J. REMNANT: That, to my mind, is a step forward.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I gave an illustration in my opening speech, and I showed that in the case of a single man, if the pensioner is not receiving more than about 35s. a week that individual would not be disqualified from receiving some pension. If the same man has a pension of £50 a year, £39 would be deducted from that. The result would be that his income for old age pension purposes would be regarded as £11 provided he has no other means, and he would be entitled to a full pension

Sir J. REMNANT: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, so that under this proposal the poor police pensioner will benefit?

Mr. SNOWDEN: If he is over 70.

Sir J. REMNANT: There are very few of them, these poor old chaps who have contributed all their lives towards this particular pension and done faithful service, and I hope the right hon. Gentle-, man will be able to include them. I am, however, much obliged to him for giving this explanation, because it does meet a point which is pressing very hardly on some civil servants to-day, and I know that they would be the last to belittle, anything that is done towards relieving the distress that they are under in these grievous times. What strikes me as one of the most important steps now taken by the right hon. Gentleman is his practical admission that thrift should be encouraged rather than discouraged in dealing with these old age pensioners. He has been a pioneer of the movement, and the first to bring it into a concrete proposal, and nobody can be otherwise than grateful to him for the recognition of something for which hon. Members in this House and people outside have been clamouring for so many years. The question of affording it is always a difficulty. I remember over 20 years ago, when the subject of old age pensions was introduced, the question of whether we could afford it was brought up everlastingly. Why one strongly advocates the question
of protection, or import duties, or any other such duties, is that this money could easily be found by putting such a duty on imports into this country as would represent the difference between wages paid in that industry in this country and those paid abroad. The Chancellor laughs, and I expected he would, but it is coming, and it is coming from the right hon. Gentleman's party.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a subject for discussion to-day.

Sir J. REMNANT: No, Sir. In the days when this question was first introduced, the question of finding the money was as rampant as it is to-day, and, perhaps, more so. At that time that was one of the and a very plausible means, by which it was hoped to find the necessary money, but then, like now, it was not acceptable to the majority of Members in this House. I hope I am in order in saying that means have to be found, and that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, as I am sure he could if he wished, find that he can give pensions, regardless of the thrift question, to our aged poor. I do not wish to introduce any subject which I should not introduce, and I am not arguing it, but I give it as a sample of the way in which we hoped in those clays to do it. It will come, and the sooner the better. I only wish now to thank the right hon. Gentleman for this step forward. We must see to it that the old poor, to whatever class they belong, whether they are civil servants, or working men, or anything else, have sufficient in their old age to keep away anxiety, not only in regard to the workhouse, but even in regard to life itself, so that they can enjoy the rest which they have earned.

Mr. FOOT: I do not want to follow the hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) into the question of whether old age pensions are best provided by a Free Trade system, or by any other system. But the fact remains that pensions were originally secured under a Free Trade system, by a Free Trade Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was a Member of a Government which governed under a policy of Free Trade. I hardly know whether to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to express my regret, though I think
possibly anything I have to say will be thanks mingled with regret. When I heard him speak on one point, there came to me the words of Walter Bagehot:
An Opposition on coming into power is often like a speculative merchant whose bills become due.
I think this is one of the Bills which has become due. I was interested in the different parts of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, because I thought there was a conflict between them. I gathered from one part of his speech that this proposal to-day was the first step which was being taken, but later he rather poured contempt upon the proposal for universal pensions, and I think he used the term "logical pedantry." I should like to know whether this is intended to precede a whole system of pensions such as was put forward by the Treasury Commission which was set up some years ago, and was also recommended by the right hon. Gentleman's own party in succeeding years.
Although my Parliamentary experience is not long, I have sat in three successive Parliaments. I remember that in the first Parliament a Motion was brought forward by a colleague of the right hon. Gentleman, who is no longer in the House. I refer to the then hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers). The Labour party by that Resolution at that time definitely and specifically proposed to wipe out the means limit altogether. I think there was a reasoned Amendment brought forward by a member of the Conservative party on that occasion in which he sought to show the injustice of giving pensions to the rich and to millionaires. That, I suppose, would be condemned now by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as "logical pedantry." At that time the Tory Amendment was resisted, and the abolition of the whole means limit secured the vote of every Labour Member in the House. There was a similar experience last year when an hon. Member representing one of the Scottish divisions urged the same contention, and there was a Member, I think the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert), who again spoke of "logical pedantry." He used the phrase the Chancellor of the Exchequer has used to-day when he spoke of the logical pedantry of giving pensions to millionaires. My sympathy, I am bound to say, goes out to those sitting upon the benches opposite, because what-
ever be the proposals which the Chancellor is making to-day, hon. Members on that side were earlier held up to a good deal of opposition, and in the subsequent election, because they had fought against the proposals to get rid of the means limit altogether.
I was very interested in hearing the Chancellor speaking to-night, because almost my first recollection in politics was of hearing a very eloquent speech from the right hon. Gentleman in my own town of Plymouth. That was the time when the right hon. Gentleman the present Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) was making his suggestion for the establishment of old age pensions under the Government of that day. The argument was then used by the Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer that his was only a first step—in fact, that they were only going a little way. I remember the speech of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and remember it very well. I remember his extended finger and the scorn with which he spoke of the efforts of the then Chancellor, and he wound up:
And these be thy gods, O Liberals!
I had the temerity afterwards, as a very young man, to get up and put some questions to the speaker. I remember the severity with which the right hon. Gentleman replied that the arguments I was putting forward were those that were frequently heard in the House of Commons, and he suggested I would make an admirable Liberal candidate for Parliament. I am, therefore, rather interested, after the lapse of so many years, in view of all that has been said, to see that he is prepared to forego, and indeed abandon, the definite declarations made in successive Parliaments by the Labour party—for the time being to abandon the pledges, on which the election was fought, and upon which votes were secured. He is now taking practically the same view that I took so many, many years ago, but which he then thought only deserving of scorn.
The objection I have to the proposals is that they retain that most objectionable feature of our old age pension system, and that is the inquisition, and I myself believe that smaller pensions with no inquisition would be almost more acceptable than the retention of the present pension with the inquisition. At any rate, I know
that matters have been frequently referred to me by persons interested in old age pensioners. I have looked into them and communicated with the Customs and Excise, and if necessary have got figures, but when I give these figures to the old folk, I can never get them to understand the figures which are in possession of the Office. The old folk are never very good at figures anyhow, and are baffled by the various calculations. We do not get rid of this objectionable inquisition. Why not allow a declaration to be made, as is done in other cases, and if you discover that there is obvious fraud, then punish that fraud. It ought to be possible, I think, that when declarations are accepted in other cases, in relation to Income Tax involving millions upon millions of money, so far as the Treasury is concerned, to accept them here. It has always seemed to me a very simple proposal. Where the pensions were larger, the questions should be larger, and where the pensions were smaller the questions should be less numerous; while now it is the other way about. The smaller the pension the more searching is the inquisition. I hope that this matter will be given some thought in any subsequent proposals.
I should like to have from the Chancellor, or his colleague the Financial Secretary, if he is answering later, some fuller explanation of one or two points than I have been able to get yet. I have the advantage, or disadvantage, of sitting on a back bench, and I am not certain that I heard all the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor had to say; but I should like to know later precisely what is to be done as to the calculation of earnings. Let me take the case of a man, say, who has been living on a farm and working all his days there. He has got to about 70. He likes to look after the horses and the cattle, so far as he is able, and to potter about in the familiar fields. If he were not allowed to do this, he would be utterly miserable. Surely, then, if he goes on as many do, especially where there may be a shortage of labour in the country districts, it is very, very hard that what he makes by this kind of labour should be taken into consideration, and may result in the cutting down of his pension. Do I understand that now these earnings will not come into consideration?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Earnings not exceeding 10s. a week will not disqualify a man from having a pension.

Mr. FOOT: At present these are frequently taken into consideration, and sometimes the result is a prosecution, because a man has been able to get some work. I hope there will be an opportunity to go more closely into that part of the question. There is a further suggestion that something should be done as to the calculation of interest. I believe that upon what are the limited savings of these people this calculation bears very hardly. They are assumed to get a certain rate per cent. of interest which is actually a great deal more than they generally do receive. These people have a little amount of money, something they have put aside in a cloam teapot—as we say in the West Country—or the stocking, and it may be banked later, though it is very rarely that they get anything more than 2½ per cent. Would it not be possible so to amend the Regulations that the interest that is debited to these people will show some sort of a correspondence with what they actually receive. There are very few eases at the present time where these people receive 5 per cent. The Chancellor has pat forward as his reason for not going further to-day the fact that the cost is so heavy. For myself, I suggest only that the old people should come first; I think particularly the aged who are in need should come first. They have the first claim. If you have only so much money that can be spent in these benevolent directions—no, I will not say benevolent—but just directions, I think you ought to consider, first of all, the claims of those who are in most need. I think that these are in most need, and, though I may not sneak for others, I express the opinion that. I would rather have had some of the Budget concessions, even such concessions as those associated with the entertainments industry, held over until we had fulfilled some of the primary duties that I have just endeavoured to outline.

Mr. GIBBINS: I would claim the indulgence and patience of the House. Though hon. Members have heard other maiden speeches during the last few days, think I may be assured of the sympathy of the House on this occasion. There is one thing with reference to the hon. and
learned Gentleman opposite who mentioned "the present disqualifications." If I know anything at all about this matter, these disqualifications have been in existence for 16 years. At any rate, the speeches this afternoon are to the effect that the Labour party have simply met something for which they and not other parties, were responsible. Apart, however, from that there have been the speeches about pledges and broken pledges, and, in fact, if it were possible to eliminate from the speeches of this House the references to broken pledges very few speeches would remain. That has been My experience during the last three or four weeks. For years the discussions on old age pensions and the removal of disqualifications have been going. It is not merely a present disqualification. As a matter of fact, though the matter was well known to both the Independent Liberal party and the Coalition party, for a number of years we have not heard of any great demand for the removal of the disqualifications. Hon. Members have my sympathy in this matter.

Mr. FOOT: If the hon. Member is looking in my direction, may I remind him that I fought against a Coalition Government candidate, and won the seat.

Mr. GIBBINS: The fact remains that these disqualifications are here, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done very well to remove some of them; and for this reason, because he is in touch with the poor people who have suffered, and is anxious to provide immediate assistance. There is one man of whom I could tell who for 48 years was a workman on public works. He worked for smallish wages, and now that he is almost crippled he is debarred from drawing a full pension because of the pension received from his firm. That is only one case out of many. [HON, MEMBERS: "Thousands!"] We have been asked whether the working class has not lost its old sense and spirit of independence. I know clock labourers to-day, over 70 years of age, still going to the stand, summer and winter, to get a job, and many of them would prefer that rather than to draw the dole. In some cases like that we allow the men to persist in working. This Bill will meet some of the difficulties of that case. The effect of the Bill will be to add pleasure and happiness to people's
lives. We are not at all satisfied that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should go by instalments. I could quote a case in which, if this Bill, or the spirit behind this Measure, had been in operation some time ago, somebody I know very dearly might have been living to-day in some sort of comfort and leisure. I know these things, and there are many ways of knowing them and simply knowing about them. It sometimes amuses me to hear people who do not know what hunger means, or the real value of a 5s. piece, pleading as if it did not matter. To my friend who will receive 4s. or 5s. because of the removal of these disqualifications it will be a God-send.
I want also to suggest that some consideration should be shown to the wife of a man who is disqualified because she is not the age of 70. He cannot work, and I know cases where a woman has been a mother for 48 years and has had in the end to turn out and become the breadwinner because the husband is only receiving a pension of 10s. a week. The dockers have no servant problem, and these things come very hard on this class of people. I thank the Committee for the attention it has given to me, and I trust that this is only the first instalment, and I hope it will not be another 16 years before we have the next instalment. If the true wealth of a nation consists mainly in the happiness and contentment of its people, then this Measure will increase the wealth of the nation, and I hope before very long we shall have it increased by a further Measure in the same direction.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: I have not risen to criticise the proposals which have been put before the Committee by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I only rise to congratulate him upon taking a step in the right direction. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman will find hon. Members on this side of the Committee will give him every sympathy and assistance in bringing forward a Measure which will benefit the whole of the people We are not anxious to make any political capital out of these proposals, but we are anxious to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his very difficult task. I have risen in order to make one suggestion. It is a question which I have raised before now by way of questions
in the House. I want to know whether it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the question of assessing the value of the house accommodation given to these old people. At present that value is taken into consideration and in some cases it amounts to a very considerable sum, and it has proved a great hardship on the old people.
I should like to place before the Committee two cases which came before my own notice. Not far from where I live an old lady died, and left a nice house near the seaside to be used as a house for the accommodation of old people. She also left a certain amount of money as an endowment to keep the house going. I know of a case where two old ladies, one over 80 and the other over s0 years of age, were admitted to this house. It is an extremely nice house near the seaside, and the accommodation given to these old people had to be taken into consideration by the pensions officer. The value of the accommodation of having rooms in this house in a fashionable watering place amounted to a very considerable sum of money, and the result was that these two old ladies were deprived of their right to receive the old age pension.
Would it be possible to arrange that the pensions officer should not take into consideration the actual value of such housing accommodation. There are other cases in which sons and daughters have also given a room or accommodation of that character, and that is often taken into consideration, and it amounts to a very considerable sum. I know it is said that children should look after their parents, but in the case of married people, not only the son or the daughter, but the son-in-law and the daughter-in-law have to be considered, and I think some liberality ought to be shown when dealing with accommodation provided in this way which is being enjoyed by the old people. I understand that up to £39 there will be no disqualification, but in the cases I have put before the Committee the accommodation amounts to more than that, and if under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals my objection could be met by such housing accommodation not being taken into consideration, then I have no more to say, and it would be a very great advantage to those
people who now have to suffer because some of their friends happen to give them a nice comfortable home in their old age.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for West Toxteth (Mr. Gibbins) on the maiden speech which he has just made, if it be not presumptuous on my part to do so. I congratulate him on his speech and the tone and temper of it. He seemed, however, to dismiss pledges with a very light gesture. He said that he did not attach very much importance to them, and the members of the party with which he is associated also seem to attach small importance to the pledges they gave at the last Election. At any rate the old age pensioners now know exactly where they stand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a courageous man. He does not give these pledges himself and he does not get votes on them, but his followers do, and I hope that this Debate—

Mr. BUCHANAN: You cannot read anything I have said.

Major HORE-BELISHA: In view of that interruption I will quote what the hon. Member for Gorbals said in the House of Commons on the 15th of May last. This is what he said:
Its is all very well for hon. Members to excuse themselves from their pledges, but the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister ought to have known that the Labour party would not remain a propaganda party, but would one day come into office and into power.
They have come into power this afternoon.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Not into power.

Major HORE-BELISHA: That excuse is getting somewhat stale. The Prime Minister has once and for all repudiated the statement that the Labour party are in office but not in foyer because he said "we have the opportunity and opportunity is power." The hon. Member for Gorbals proceeded to say:
They should, therefore, have made their pledges sincerely, intending to carry them out. My chief objection to their not carrying their pledges out is that it was given to a body of very poor men. If they were well-fed men, well-clothed, and comfortably housed, it would not matter so much, because men in that position can fight their own battles; but to treat with contempt a pledge made to poor people is not worthy of a decent Government, and I hope that the people who do not carry this pledge out will go down with contempt in the political history of the country.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Government are now carrying out their pledge.

Major HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend says the Government are now carrying out their pledge, but they are doing nothing of the kind. I do not dispute that this proposal is a great benefit to the old age pensioners, but when my hon. Friend says they are carryout their pledge, he is very much mistaken. The whole purport of the Motion moved by the Labour party on the 21st February last year, before they came into office, was to remove the means limit, and on that occasion the present Secretary for the Colonies said:
We can argue details and go into side issues, but that, after all, is the object of this Motion, namely, to remove that cruel, mean, and scandalous injustice.
The Colonial Secretary was referring to the inquiry into the means limit, and he gave some very moving instances of the harsh way in which it operated. He said that it was not a question of details, of, presumably, increasing pensions by so much or altering the means limit, but the whole grievance was this means limit which he described as "a cruel, mean, and scandalous injustice." I wonder with what kind of conscience the right hon. Gentleman remains in a Cabinet which is continuing that "cruel, mean, and scandalous injustice"? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of his very conservative speech, said that in theory he was in favour of implementing the pledges given by the Labour party at the last Election, and which have been given by them for many years. The Colonial Secretary dealt with that very point. He said, referring to a previous Conservative speaker:
He may be in favour in theory of the report, but being in favour, in theory, will not remove any of the hardships I am dealing with. We believe it will be far better to be more practical than theoretical in a very practical matter of this kind.
Further, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I would ask the House when they go into the Lobby to vote against this Motion, can they justify their conduct on such glaring facts and such scandalous treatment as that?
6.0 P.M
The right hon. Gentleman described the case of an old veteran of 70 years of age growing potatoes and greens on an allotment who had been subjected to a cruel inquisition. If that poor old veteran is still
alive, and is still growing potatoes and greens, he will still be subjected to that inquisition, and that, really, as it seems to me, is the whole point of substance in the pledges. I quite admit that he will get more money, and one is grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I admitted at the outset, but I said that the Labour Members who spoke on this question a year ago went to the very heart of the question when they said that it was not a question of detail, not a question of increasing the pension by so much, but a question of whether or not the means limit should be abolished altogether. I would ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when he replies, to consider the effect that excluding earnings from the benefit of these proposals is going to have on society as a whole. In the Memorandum he gives a case in which the income from earnings is 40s. per week, and from property 22s. per week, making a total income of 62s., and the Memorandum goes on to state:
Under present law the means of each are taken to be half the total means, namely, 31s. per week"—
this is a married couple—
and no pension at all is payable. Under the proposal"—
that is to say, this new proposal—
11s. per week would be deducted in calculating the means of each, but the means would still exceed the existing statutory limit of 19s. per week, and pension would still not be payable.
But if a pensioner goes to his employer and says, "I am earning this 40s. a week now from you; I will do the identical work for 5s. a week less, and get the other 5s. from the Government," that is what the Government is inviting these people to do. It is the same in the case of a single man. The Memorandum gives the case of a single man earning 20s. a week and having property valued at 11s. a week, making a total income of 31s. Under the present law that man gets no pension at all. Under this proposal a deduction of 1ls. per week would be made in calculating the means, but the means would still exceed the statutory limit of 19s. per week, and a pension would still not be payable. Therefore, a man earning 20s. a week by his work can now go to his employer and say, "It will pay you to pay me 15s. a week instead of 20s., and let the State pay the rest." That is the tendency of a Measure of this kind.
The social reactions of giving old age pensions in the first instance have been very considerable, because they have reversed a very human tendency. The tendency was for neighbours to support neighbours, for sons to support parents, and for relatives to support relatives, but the whole tendency of old age pensions has been to reverse that, and to make people less inclined to support one another, to make the employer less generous than he might have been towards those who have grown old in his service, and to make the son—I have seen cases of it—less inclined to support an old father, because he says it is the State's job to do it. Having put this tendency into operation, I do think it is the duty of the State to see that these old people are adequately looked after, and are not submitted to all kinds of reductions on all kinds of grounds, and that a differentiation is not made between one method of earning an income and another. It is quite unreasonable, as the Departmental Committee on Pensions themselves stated, to draw a distinction between one kind of means and another, whether they be earned in the present or whether they have been earned in the past. We must recognise that an old age pension was never intended to be a sufficient amount on which to keep a man, and, therefore, anything that he may earn or may have saved should be accounted unto him for credit and not for unrighteousness.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this proposal removed every reasonable grievance. I do not know if he meant by that—I sincerely hope he did not—that this is the final step that he is going to take as regards old age pensions. [Interruption.] He said it removed every reasonable grievance. I listened very carefully, and wrote down the words, and there is no harm in getting an understanding from the hon. Gentleman who is going to speak for the Government on this point. I noted the words, namely, that it removes every reasonable grievance. Does it, or does it not? If we have an admission that it does not, and a foreshadowing of further legislation the House and the old age pensioners will be very pleased. I hope, therefore, that a precise declaration of the intentions of the Government will be made. We are
entitled to know them, because it is obvious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer deluded himself into the belief that he was doing very much more than he is doing, and that he was putting into operation the terms of this very admirable Departmental Committee's finding.
Lastly, there is the question of the cost. Of course, it can never be too expensive to carry out what you have promised, but, apart from that, the Socialist Members who spoke in favour of the Resolution last year and in previous years pooh-poohed the whole idea of cost. They said it should be a first charge on the community to look after these old people, and, seeing that they have promised this, one might quite legitimately expect the question of cost to be a secondary consideration. But, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer must know perfectly well, there is only one possible way of finding the cost of a scheme. And that is by a comprehensive insurance proposal which shall cover the man or woman against every risk to which he or she may be subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must know that perfectly well, and, instead of dealing with this matter in driblets, as he is doing—instead of giving a bit to the widows and a bit to the old age pensioners, or promising a bit to the widows and giving a bit to the old age pensioners, and saying, "You may get a little more in five years' time"—why does not he, in addition, of course, to doing what he is doing now, really investigate the subject comprehensively, and come forward with a scheme which shall be self-supporting, and which shall, once and for all, settle this question of the support which a man or woman is entitled to receive in the ordinary contingencies of life?
In a little book which he has published on the subject Sir William Beveridge shows quite clearly—[Interruption.] If hon. Members can produce a better authority it does not matter. Many people have done exactly the same, but I happen to have this book and have read it, and it shows quite clearly that, for very little additional cost, this could be put into operation, and, incidentally, that, if the pensionable age were reduced to 65, it would reduce the disablement benefit under the other insurance scheme. I do hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will undertake to examine a
comprehensive scheme of insurance. As far as I can understand, all parties seem to be in agreement with it in principle. It would result in a saving to the Exchequer, it would give the community a very much greater sense of security, and would put that security on a proper basis, and not on a basis of charity at all. Some of these schemes are liable to the stigma that they are a form of charity, although of course, they are not. If the whole thing can be put on a contributory basis, so as to cover people against old age, accidents, unemployment, and ill-health and widowhood, under one comprehensive scheme, the discussion which has taken place this afternoon will not have been in vain, and every citizen of this community would stand to benefit.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise partly because of the quotation, or part of a quotation, which the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha) gave from a speech that I recently made in this House. I should like to point out to the hon. and gallant Member that, as I stated in that speech, I am not concerned with pledges made to rich and comfortable people, but am concerned more with pledges to the poorer people, and this pledge deals, first of all, with trying to bring in a larger number of people within the Act than formerly. To that extent I am glad that this Resolution has been brought in. May I put to the hon. and gallant Member one point to which, I am sure, he could not have given very much serious thought? He asked why, instead of bringing this in in driblets—old age pensions and mothers' pensions—we did not have a comprehensive scheme? In simple language, what he asked was that we should not have this benefit for the old people—

Major HORE-BELISHA: indicated dissent.

Mr. BUCHANAN: —because it was not a comprehensive scheme.

Major HORE-BELISHA: No; the hon. Member has no right to say that. I never intended it, nor did I say it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That was the hon. and gallant Member's statement. His statement was this—and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman), who was sitting close to him. He asked deliber-
ately why we have this brought in in driblets—first of all, old age pensions, and then mothers' pensions—and said that what we want is a comprehensive scheme. What does that mean? It means that we should have no improvement of old age pensions, and no mothers' pensions, because we have no comprehensive scheme. I know that the hon. and gallant Member, now that it is brought home to him, will try to deny what he said, but he said it.

Mr. MASTERMAN: As the hon. Member appeals to me, I feel sure he knows that that was not the intention of my hon. and gallant Friend. There is not the slightest reason why this Government should not have included this and all other schemes in one Measure and passed it this year, if they had had the energy and the courage to do so.

Mr. BUCHANAN: No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that his party, as part of the Coalition Government, were in office for a considerable length of time, and they had not the energy and courage to do this; and if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) had not energy enough, there is very little chance of anyone else having it. Talking about pledges, one ear go right back to the Newcastle programme, which built up the Liberal party and put it in power and kept it there, but how little of that programme has ever been put into effect! I want to put before the Committee one other point of view, which I do not think has been expressed at all. I say frankly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I am disappointed with what has been brought forward, but I am disappointed for an altogether different reason from those of any previous speakers. I should like seriously to put two points to the Committee.
First of all, we have an Income Tax limit. A single man is exempt up to, I think, 130 per annum, and a married man, I think, up to £225. What is to hinder the Chancellor of the Exchequer from accepting the Income Tax limit and making that automatically the limit for pensions? For my part, I cannot see that it would add much to the cost. There are only 130,000 people left outside the
scope of the scheme now, and, deducting rich men and those who are over the Income Tax limit, it could only add 30,000 or 40,000 to the present number. It would simplify the matter and save a considerable amount of grievance, which I think is quite just, to include these people in the old age pensions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is well known for not being connected with the revolutionary side of the Socialist movement, and it is not a revolutionary proposal to ask that it be increased up to the Income Tax limit. But I want to criticise those who have been criticising the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to put to them this point. I am more concerned with the lowering of the age and the increasing of the amount than with the abolition of the means limit. I should like them to consider this point of view. We have heard about the evils of inquisition, but we have not heard about the evils of the man of 69 who is unable to work and has no pension at all. If you abolish the means limit entirely and bring in every person who is liable, you are making it more difficult for us to ask for a lowering of the age, because everything that adds to the cost of the present scheme makes it more difficult.
The first great thing, now that the right hon. Gentleman has admitted so many, if he is to increase it to the Income Tax level, would be not to bring in every person but to lower the present age limit of 70. We all know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a peace lover and, as I am glad to say, a pacifist. I should like to have seen the Government spend less in military adventures abroad and more on our people at home. If he has another year to go, the first thing that ought to be done in that year is to reduce the age. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) gave pledges in the last House and in the Coalition Government to inaugurate a 48-hour week. It was never carried out, and was never intended to be carried out. I would sooner have had the right hon. Gentleman not giving us a 48-hour week, but even giving us a partial contribution than nothing at all, as he did. I am glad to have even a partial carrying out of a promise. This is not an ample fulfilment of all we
thought we should get. There will be some disappointment for us, and the people who have a right to criticise it are not our opponents on the other side, or even hon. Members below the Gangway, but the supporters of the Labour movement itself. I hope the Chancellor has not said the last word on this, but will at lease increase the disqualification to the Income Tax limit, and clear away a good deal of the irritation so justly felt by the old people of the country.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: The party in office have been absolutely consistent through all these years in putting their proposal before the House to abolish the means limit altogether. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that that is a thing he was in favour of in theory, but the party unfortunately have found, on coming into office, the difficulties with which their predecessors were met of finding the money necessary to carry out that theoretically excellent reform. Therefore, while one may congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government on the proposal they are making to-day, one may perhaps also sympathise with them in the fact that they have been able to go such a short distance. I have a very clear recollection of things that were still by Members of that party about me on electioneering platforms because I bad stated in this House that I was also, in theory, in favour of the entire abolition of the means limit. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been more fortunate than his predecessors in that he has come into office at a time when, although he could not, find the money to abolish the means limit altogether, he is able to find substantial sum of money in order to improve the lot of the old age pensioners. I am sure the Chancellor and his Deputy, the Financial Secretary, are too good Parliamentarians to grumble if we criticise the form of their proposal in some detail. I am afraid among the class whom tithe Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to benefit and help there will an enormous number left over still who are the hard cases that come into existence on the moving up of this line, and I am afraid he will not have very kind words said of him by those who are just shut out from the increased benefit by the line which he has been obliged to draw.
But I want to refer to one or two things which I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not proposing to do. I shall be corrected if I am wrong in thinking they are not proposed, and if I put this forward by way of criticism so far as possible within the terms of the Financial Resolution I hope they will be taken into account and something will be clone. Reference has already been made to the numerous hardships connected with the present system of old age pensions, entirely apart from the biggest one which I will come to later on of the method of the system being a discouragement to thrift. The other hardships are the inquisitorial methods and the way in which they have been used in the past and the hardship of such matters as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman) referred to as the placing of an unfairly high value upon the housing accommodation which some of these old people get by means of charity, and which is very much better accommodation than their means would otherwise justify. I think it is worth consideration whether the value of housing accommodation which is provided by means of charity or through members of the family or anything of that kind should be fixed for the purposes of old age pensions at what would be a reasonable rental for the particular old age pensioner to pay. An old lady is put to live in comfortable rooms in a beautiful house in a beautiful position where rents would be high. If she cannot accept the offer of these most comfortable rooms she has got to get very poor rooms somewhere and pay for them out of her pension or other means, and it seems to me the Government might well, if they could, put a limit for the purposes of the means calculation on any housing accommodation so that, in so far as the housing accommodation is beyond the standard of the old age pensioner, but is given through charitably minded persons, the old age pensioner should not suffer for that reason. That seems to be a matter which would cost very little indeed and would be one way of remedying one of the things that is a considerable hardship.
Now I come to the question of the inquisitorial methods, and it seems to me a great deal can be done by a little careful thinking out of these grievances and trying to see if they cannot be met in
the Measure which is to be brought in as the result of this Financial Resolution. Take cash earnings. Take the old veteran, who was spoken of by the Colonial Secretary in the Debate of last year, who made a few shillings by growing cabbages and potatoes. Take the man who is able to do an occasional bit of work in fine weather, or who has an ailment, which sometimes leaves him a little better for a week or two. Would it not be possible to exempt altogether from the inquisition or from the means limit certain cash earnings, which, clearly, amount to very little, and so avoid to that extent the inquisitorial methods, which must in many cases entail more expense and time than the saving of the pension is worth? I want to express the great disappointment which will be felt throughout the whole country that the Government have not been able to adopt anything but an extraordinarily clumsy method of just helping the few. I do not think it is unfair to say they have done nothing whatever to remedy that great blot on the system, the discouragement of thrift. They are merely shifting the line a little bit.
Although they have not been in office very long, there is no question that they have been most keenly interested in this subject for years, and it is only fair to say that perhaps had they realised years ago the position their first Chancellor of the Exchequer finds himself in, of not having the money to go the whole distance, if they had realised that the. Governments of previous years have suffered from that same difficulty to an even greater extent, they might during these past years have done something to try to evolve a different and an improved system which would have given the thrifty worker an inalienable right to a pension to which he had done something to contribute, however successful he might have been, and by that means they might be able to give pensions to those who have done their little bit towards providing for them by their own thrift absolutely, regardless of any means limit, and yet avoid the giving of pensions to those whose means make it unnecessary for them to have them, and who have dare nothing to contribute towards any system of the kind, because they have never anticipated the want of an old age pension. You would be saving that, and you would be able to grant these pensions on a more sound and economic basis at much less
cost to the country, and at a much greater encouragement of thrift and in a manner which would help the poorest workers in the country to increase their self-esteem and their comfort at the same time.
Hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite will agree with me that it is likely to be a long time yet, even if the recovery in this country is quicker than we dared hope for, before it will be possible absolutely to remove the means limitation. If that be so, I suggest that even now, if the Government hope to remain in office for any time, they should devote themselves to studying the question of setting the whole system of old age pensions on some kind of a contributory basis or, at any rate, on some basis which, while getting rid of the discouragement to thrift, will do one other thing, and that is to distinguish between the old age pensioner who is entitled by his conduct to an old age pension, and the old person who has never done anything to deserve an old age pension. I mean the person who is looked upon by his associates as one of those people who only deserve to be kept from real suffering by reason of humanity.
I hope hon. Members opposite will not misunderstand me. They will realise, they know it themselves, that there are and always must be a very small number—as an Englishman I am proud that their number is small—of wastrels. If you do not in any way distinguish between that small minority and the great majority of the poorer workers in this country, it is absolutely inevitable that there must be some slight taint of pauperism about these old age pensions. We wish to get rid of that, and hon. Members opposite will thoroughly agree with me in that view. There may be differences of opinion as to how it could be done, but in any review of the system of old age pensions that is certainly a subject to be born in mind.
What I am aiming at is to give to the vast majority of the workers in this country the old age pension to which they are properly entitled through years of service during their active life, and by means of some contribution on their part, however small, I should like to give them their pension as a right by reason of that contribution, never mind how rich they may become. I should like to give them
that right to pension, not merely under the Statute, but by all the principles of law and equity, as something which they have directly helped to provide. When we talk on this subject we are dealing with a difficult matter. There are people with whom it is not easy to arrange a contribution—workers of the least skilled classes, workers whose occupation is largely casual and from whom it may be said that you cannot ensure getting the contribution, and yet many of them are not to be described be any means as wastrels, because they are people who are entitled to old age pensions. It ought not, however, to be beyond the capacity of a Government in this country to deal with that kind of difficulty. It has been dealt with by the system of national health insurance and other schemes of that kind which are contributory. Something of that kind ought to be done in connection with old age pensions. Until that is done you will never get rid of the grievances which attach to the present system.
All of us—I can spent: for everyone on these benches—are glad to have an opportunity of helping the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get through these proposals, however much we may criticise them in detail, proving what we have always said, that we desired, as soon as the means of this country would allow it, to do the best we could to remove the grievances of old age pensioners. But I cannot help qualifying these congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by an expression of the very deepest regret that he has done it in what seems to me the clumsiest possible way—a mere shifting of the line, without any attempt to tackle the real grievances which are at the root. If he cannot get rid of all of them, he could get rid of some of them. May I express the hope that in the Bill, when it comes before the House, the Government will do their best to see whether they cannot within the terms of this Resolution, even if it costs a little more public money, get rid of the worst part of what are known as the inquisitorial methods, and if they cannot get rid of the hardships attaching to the drawing of a hard and fast line that they should do something to get rid of one or two of the unquestionable hardships in cases which come below the line, such as those to which I have
referred, in regard to casual earnings and the fixing of the value for housing accommodation which is provided by charitable means for old age pensioners.

Mr. G. OLIVER: The hon. Member who has just sat down, said that he was in favour of removing the inquisitorial inquiries into the means of applicants for old age pensions, but as he developed his speech he referred to people who by some misconduct ought to be disqualified and ought not to be entitled to pensions, and seemed to suggest that a line should be drawn between that type of person and the person whose conduct would justify his or her receiving an old age pension.

Mr. HERBERT: I did not mean that that should be done by any inquisition or any inquisitorial method. I meant that it might be done by means of a system towards which the old age pensioner would contribute.

Mr. OLIVER: I think that would involve a greater amount of inquiry than the system now outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have had some experience on an Old Age Pensions Committee. Whilst we all regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not found it possible to introduce a universal old age pension scheme, we all appreciate very highly the huge step that he has taken in including the 170,000 persons who will come within the scheme. I should like to make a few points regarding the Regulations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that gifts would not be taken into account when they came from the sons or daughters of the old age pensioner, but I did not hear him explain how that would come about, because in the border-line cases, where inquiry has to be made, whilst the regulations remain as they are, gifts from children, investments in banks and other forms of small contributions must of necessity be taken into account.
Many of us have had large experience on old age pensions committees, and we believe it is possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exclude from the Regulations such things as meals given by the children to people over 70 years of age, and to exclude those small, petty-fogging, humbugging things which are taken into account, such as eggs from back-yard We want him to
revise the Regulations as to certain other things. When there, are investments in the Post Office, 2½ per cent. interest is obtained, but the pensions officer takes into account 5 per cent. interest as being obtained on that money. Obviously, that is 2½ per cent. higher than the interest received. If that money was invested in any concern which paid 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. would be computed as income. If the pensions officer takes 5 per cent. when 2½ per cent. only is being obtained on the money invested, it is wrong to take any higher sum than the 5 per cent. when a rate of interest higher than 5 per cent. is being earned. We ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something to modify these Regulations, because we believe that it is possible under the existing arrangements to provide that these Regulations shall not be so inquisitorial as they have been in the past. We believe that it is not decent or dignified for a country of for great dimensions and of great wealth to investigate all these petty-fogging details, as is done by some pensions officers.

Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: There is a consensus of opinion throughout the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the right step in removing part of the thrift disqualification. It is agreed that the urgency is such as to demand some action of that kind. We are all agreed that the penalisation of thrift has been little short of a scandal. I am disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not done much more than he has undertaken to do this afternoon. In the year 1919 a Committee was appointed by the Treasury, representative of all parties in the House, and the majority report recommended the abolition of these means limits. In the majority report they laid emphasis on three facts:

"(1) That the existence of the means limit reintroduces the old pauper taint and brands the old age pension as a compassionate grant.
(2) That the inclusion in a pensioner's means, by reason of which lie may lose his right to a pension, of certain kinds of income injuriously affects thrift, benevolence, and industry.
(3) That the inquiries which are essential to the system cause a certain amount of irritation and friction."

These objections have not been eliminated by the statement of the Chan-
cellor of Exchequer. The friction and irritation will still remain. The penalisation of thrift to a large extent will still remain. I grant that there is a great deal of force in what the Chancellor of Exchequer says. We cannot have a universal old age pension because, although the Committee recommended it, the state of the national exchequer will not allow it. Even so I think that he could have, at any rate, gone to the limit of the Income Tax. It would not have been too much to ask that he should have raised it to the Income Tax limit. I find it hard to understand how he can plead the poverty of the Exchequer. One cannot forget that his colleague the Secretary of State for War publicly declared that this country could afford to give an old age pension of 15s. a week to every man and woman at the age of 60. I do not know whether the Secretary of State made that statement with the consent of the Chancellor of Exchequer.
It was made, I grant, at the time of the Burnley election, but I do not think that a Cabinet Minister should make statements of that kind, and raise the expectations of the aged, and that then his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer should come forward and say that the state of the Exchequer will not allow any substantial increase. I hope that the Chanceller of the Exchequer will even now reconsider the advisability of raising the exemption to the Income Tax limit. He can count on the full support of this House. By all means let us do what we can to ease the declining years of the aged by enabling them to live amid surroundings undistressed by cankering care and unclouded by the black shadows of want. Therefore I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider the position and bring in a still better scheme.

Viscount CURZON: I am indeed glad to be able to join in the universal chorus of, shall we call it, sympathetic praise with which the Chancellor's scheme has been received this afternoon. I am all the more glad to be able to do so because the Socialist party in my constituency spent the whole of last Sunday, from nine o'clock in the morning until nine o'clock at night, holding meetings abusing me at intervals, I believe, during the proceedings, and saying that I was not in favour of the removal of the thrift disqualifica-
tion on old age pensions. It did not suffice for me to say definitely in my Election address that I was, and that I would vote for it. That statement was ignored, but as they were able to spend a pleasant Sunday telling all and sundry what they thought about me, I do not grudge them the fun which they had. At the same time I am glad to be here to witness the passing of this Resolution.
There are one or two criticisms which I would like to offer, but they are advanced purely from a sympathetic point of view. I think that, probably, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has at the moment done the best thing which he can do, but, at the same time, the speech with which he introduced the Resolution reminded me somewhat of the ghost of speeches which were delivered in days gone by by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He had a slight passing reference to the dukes. I could not help wondering whether the Chancellor had taken his inspiration from the right hon. Gentleman. These remarks did not seem to me to be very relevant. If I understood the speech aright, it seemed to amount to this, that the present scheme will benefit, roughly, about 300,000 people. My figures, possibly, may be slightly out, but I do not think they are. I listened very carefully and I tried to make them right.
The first criticism which I have to offer is that the numbers are not large enough. The second criticism is that the scheme rather savours of opportunism, inasmuch as it is about the best thing that the Chancellor can do at the moment. I would infinitely prefer—while I thoroughly accept this as something to be going on with—and I hope that we shall be able to see, at no very distant date, a comprehensive scheme brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a scheme such as the Conservative Government foreshadowed in the King's Speech and in their election manifesto and their speeches at the election, it comprehensive scheme which should provide for old age and everything else. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman brought in a scheme of that sort—and I can assure hon. Members opposite that I am not hostile in my criticism at all—he would be able to do very much more for the old people than he is doing under this scheme. He would be able for instance to afford a
pension on a graduated scale and at a very much lower age. He would be able to avoid the extraordinary cruelty, as it must be as pointed out by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), of the position between the ages of 69 and 70.
It is a very hard case that the old person of 69 is excluded, while the person who is just through the gate can get the pension. If the right hon. Gentleman brings in some sort of contributory scheme he will be able to make it apply to a far greater number of people, and he will be able to give it up to the income Tax limit. He would also be able to graduate the scale and begin at a lower age. Such a scheme has everything to recommend it. There was another point, about which I was not sure when I listened to the Chancellor. The cost of this proposal, I understand, is going to be something like £4,500,000. I do not know whether the cost is coming from this year's Budget. I think that the Chancellor stated, in the discussion on the Budget the other day, that any extra demands would have to be met by extra taxation, and that he had not provided for the increase of old age pensions.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Perhaps I may intervene to make the position clear. I do not remember the speech to which the hon. Member refers, but the position is this: It will cost about £4,125,000 in the first full year, but as the: hon. Member knows, this will not be a full year. The cost this year will probably cover only a period of five or six months. Therefore, I do not estimate that the cost on the Exchequer this, year will amount to more than £2,000,000. The hon. Member will remember that I kept in hand a, surplus of something like £4,000,000, and from that this is being taken. I may add that there was an interruption earlier to-day by an hon. Member opposite, and as I did not quite comprehend what he meant I gave an answer that was not correct. I understand now that the question was whether a Supplementary Estimate would be necessary, and, under a misapprehension, I said "No," but, of course, a Supplementary Estimate will be necessary.

Viscount CURZON: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. It was I who put, the question to him at the conclusion of his speech, and I am glad to have the point cleared up. We
may take it from the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has just given that the cost this year may be expected to be rather over £1,000,000.

Mr. SNOWDEN: About £2,000,000.

Viscount CURZON: That is out of the £4,000,000 which is available. It seems to me that the amount available as extra provision by the Government for unemployment is becoming less and less every day. However I pass from that. I have listened to hon. Members below the Gangway opposite quoting from speeches of members of the Socialist party when they brought in their Resolution last year. I am not sure that that is a very fruitful line of discussion. I do not think it will help us very much in this question. Of course it is very nice to be able to convict one's opponents of political inconsistency, but at the same time, no doubt, office has brought with it a better realisation of the difficulties of government than hon. Members had when they lightheartedly brought in their Motion last year. For now they find that they have to make provision for what they propose.
I hope that the Committee will pass this Resolution, which will do something to improve the position of the old age pensioners, and I hope the Chancellor will still further explore the position to see whether at a very early date we shall be able to go in for a really comprehensive scheme such as most hon. Members have desired. If we do so we shall be able, at any rate, to make the lot of the old people a bit happier. Anybody who sits for a large urban constituency, or even for a county constituency, knows only too well what are the sufferings of some of these old people in very difficult circumstances, and the heroic bravery with which they bear themselves, and I am not sure that we should all of us, living in more comfortable circumstances, as we are fortunate enough to do, bear ourselves with as much bravery as they do. I am glad that we have got this Measure before us. I hope that as this is the first step it will not be the last, and I hope that with my hon. Friend's help we shall be able to go up to the income Tax limit eventually, and also to decrease the minimum age, but this can be done, I am convinced, as part of a comprehensive scheme much broader than that which has been outlined this afternoon.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. Graham): Before the Committee comes to a decision on this Resolution hon. Members will bear with me for a few minutes while I reply shortly to a few of the leading points which have been referred to. In the first place, my right hon. Friend desires me to thank hon. Members in all parts of the House for the very cordial reception which they have given to this Resolution, which has been expressly put forward merely as an instalment of a reform which we hope later to carry further. That is the spirit in which the Resolution has been received by the Committee, and we are grateful to hon. Members for the reception which they have given to it.
Many hon. Members have referred to what they call the inquisitorial character of the investigation that is made, but everyone will agree that as long as a means limit is retained it will be necessary to make inquiry into the income and other resources of the applicant, and to that extent investigation must be carried on. I think that I ought to say on this point that, while no doubt here and there there are difficult cases of unpleasantness, as between the pensions officers and the applicants for old age pensions, on the whole our inference is that the pensions officers perform a task, which is very often one of great difficulty, with very great care and discretion. It is certainly the opinion of my right hon. Friend to-day that, looking to the more generous terms which be has introduced, the tendency will be somewhat to reduce the amount of investigation and cause to the poor less friction than has hitherto existed.
7.0 P.M.
In the second place, the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman) and the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert), among others, drew attention to certain difficulties in the existing administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, and referred particularly to the valuation of house property and also to investments in savings banks and kindred institutions. We are very far from denying that there are in such connections inequalities and anomalies which might well be removed. May I remind the House to-night of the real difficulty. It is the object of my right hon. Friend to confine his proposals strictly to an amended financial statement. The Bill
which we propose to introduce will be to all intents and purposes merely the Financial Resolution. If we strayed beyond the terms of the Resolution into any of the proposals or difficulties to which hon. Members have alluded, we should open the door to a long series of Amendments covering those and other points which would no doubt be promoted by hon. Members in all parts of the House. That would expose the Bill to a good deal of delay in the now terribly congested state of business which confronts us between the present clay and that at which optimists of this House hope to rise for the Summer Recess. On that ground, I sincerely trust hon. Members will not press us to go into administrative detail. 'That may be the subject of future Amendments of this legislation. In the interests of economy of our time, and the importance of getting the Bill through, I respectfully ask the House not to press such Amendments now.
In the third place, several hon. Members propose that we should depart from the scheme suggested by the Chancellor and take the existing Income Tax limit as the basis, which would be, approximately £135, or £150 in round figures in the case of an unmarried person; or £225, or £250 in the case of a married couple. There are very great administrative difficulties attached to a proposal of that kind. I do not require to remind the House that the Income Tax limit in practice is not the fixed thing which some Members have suggested, but is a varying factor. Without saying a single word more about the administrative difficulty of taking the Income Tax limit as a basis, the practical reply for the House this afternoon is this, that, according to the figures at our disposal, the adoption of that limit would cost only £3,000,000 less than the abolition of the means limit altogether. In other words, instead of £18,000,000 for the abolition of the means in the first year, the adoption of the Income Tax limit as a basis in flee first year would cost £15,000,000. As the Chancellor has indicated, we are not a: this stage able to find such a sum. We are finding £4,000,000 in the first full year and rather more than £2,000,000 this year. I trust with that brief explanation the Committee will now enable us to get this Resolution, remembering that there is an
opportunity for further discussion during the Committee and later stages of the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: There was one point in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which I particularly wish to refer. There is not the slightest doubt that promises were made by every party that all difficulties and restrictions, especially those that used thrift on the part of individual citizens as a reason for reducing the pension by the State, should be removed. But the point to which I wish to refer is the manner in which business is presented to the country generally. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that these were not the proposals of the party to which he belonged, and that these were not the proposals which the Government would make if they had the power. The supposition, therefore, s that the Chancellor is going to suggest to people outside that he would have made much more drastic proposals if it were not for the opposition: either the official opposition, or my hon. Friends on his side of the House below the Gangway. That is absolutely unfair.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Surely the hon. and gallant Member does not suggest that. There was nothing whatever in my speech to that effect.

Lieut. - Colonel WARD: It is also alleged by one of the Members present that I was not in the House. Allow me to tell you that I was. I attended what I considered the essential part of the Chancellor's address, namely, his reasons for not dealing with the whole subject, and also the statement of the exact effect of his proposals upon the pensioner. I am within the recollection of those Members who were present that, while it may not have been stated by the Chancellor in the brutal way in which I am now stating it, there is not the slightest doubt that the indication which he gave in the preamble of his speech was to the effect that these were not really the proposals of his party—not such as they would make if they had a majority in this House. He may take it front me that that sort of argument, in presenting the Government's proposals, is getting pretty threadbare, especially on matters of this description. Both in the ease of unemployment and old age pensions I feel that the Labour Government should be more bold,
and state definitely what their full policy is relating to these subjects, and trust to the generosity and good feeling of other Members of the House, and let them see it.
I say most emphatically that so far as I understand the opinion of the House—and I have been here just about as long as the Chancellor himself; I have been a Member nearly 20 years—the House would treat these subjects relating to the relief of distress and the actual position of the daily worker who earns a hard-earned living by his labour, in a generous spirit, and the people would be as impressed on the one side of the House and in one party as well as another that it is not the limit of my hon. Friend's intentions. [A LABOUR MEMBER "Why did you not do it last year?"] I am talking as we are here at the moment. I am dealing with the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with the particular part of the speech to which I most vehemently object. Dealing with unemployment, the wonderful things we would do if only we had a majority in this House Dealing with housing, the wonderful things we would do if we only had a majority! It is all absolute humbug. The Chancellor knows perfectly well that he has the management of the finances of the country, and that the promises which he and perhaps I have made, are not so easily to be performed as they seemed when we were tub-thumping at the street corners. That is all it amounts to. [Interruption.] Interruption will only make me go on another five minutes. This is the place where free speech at least is allowed. You can suppress a man at the street corners, you can break up a meeting of mine—you have done it before—but you cannot do it here. I say, therefore, I am certain that the argument is worn threadbare, and you can take it from me that the workpeople are beginning to see that it is not quite fair to put forward limited proposals admittedly short of the things promised, and then not confess that you are putting forward your proposals in a limited form because you now understand the, difficulty. Face it and tell them, and your people will support you just the same, but to go on pretending that you do not make your proposals because of the opposition of the other parties in the House is really too stupid
for words and will not work. Take it from me.

Mr. G. BARKER: May I inform the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) that Labour is only 31 per cent. of the House of Commons. That the Labour party, when it had a majority of the House, would do this, that or the other is altogether beside the question when the party is in the minority, as it is at present. The Opposition has been engaged during the whole of this Session charging the Labour party with breaking its pledges. It is a piece of sheer hypocrisy and humbug, and the country knows it very well. My object in rising now is to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I agree with the sentiments of the Committee that the Chancellor has gone a long way to ease a very difficult situation, and I want to say that a man cannot live on 10s. a week. They are compelled to work. Therefore, I want the Chancellor to extend that £37 that he has put in with reference to thrift to the wages of the working classes, because if a man be a single man he gets 10s. per week pension, but if his earnings exceed 10s., then an inroad is made into that 10s. a week pension. That is putting this man in an intolerable position. If he be a married man and his earnings exceed £1 a week, an inroad is at once made into the old age pension of his wife and himself. Until the Chancellor provides an old age pension on which the recipients can live they must work for their livelihood, and they should have the benefit of the £37. I strongly urge upon the. Chancellor to visualise the position of the working man excluded from the benefit of this £37, and, if possible, to put him in the position of the man who gets the benefit.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

PENSIONS INCREASE BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House will be aware that we have already had two Debates on this subject—
on the original Financial Resolution and on the Amended Resolution, and, in view of that, I do not propose to say more than a few words in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It provides for raising the percentages by which certain pensions were to be increased under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920. It applies to rather less than 100,000 pre-War pensioners in this country, and the approximate cost. of the increase will be £300,000 in a full year, but the House will remember that the pensions are to be increased retrospectively as from the 1st July, 1923. Further, we also include in the Bill a provision which removes the disqualification of pre-War pensioners residing outside the British Isles, and that involves an extra cost, in a full financial year, of approximately £60,000. Further, we have now made it definitely obligatory on the local authorities of this country to increase pensions granted by them up to the maximum authorised by the Act. May I make it clear that on that point there is not much to be said from the financial side, because in the financial year 1923 it was plain that the local authorities did give effect to the proposals to the extent of £238,000, whereas if the proposals had been given full effect to the total amount involved would only have been £256,000, so that in actual figures a difference of about £18,000 represents the extent to which the local authorities failed to apply the Measure. This is now made obligatory on the local authorities, and it is to take retrospective effect as from July, 1923.
That embodies most of the proposals of the Bill. There is, however, one other point to which I would like to draw attention. We have incorporated in this Measure a Clause which provides for an overriding maximum in the case of people who retired before July, 1923, to secure that their pension or allowance shall not be more than would be accorded to anyone who retired after that date with a similar length of service. I am sure the House will agree that it would be wrong that anyone should get a larger sum under the new arrangement than if he retired after July, 1923, as it would lead to all kinds of administrative and other difficulties. That is a summary of the Bill to which I venture to ask the House to give a Second Reading.

Sir J. REMNANT: I should like to make a few remarks on the Second Reading of this Bill with a view to getting a little fuller explanation from the hon. Gentleman on some of the points which, to my mind at any rate, are rather obscure at present. The Bill, so far as it goes, like the Resolution we have just passed, is a step in the right direction. It does not go anything like so far as we could wish it to, but still we are thankful for this step forward. The hon. Gentleman in moving the Second Reading referred to the pensions existing before the passing of the principal Act. I would ask him what is to happen in the case of those authorities who have refused to give any increase at all. As far as I read the Bill, these authorities will now be compelled, and will have no discretion in the matter, but to give the increases as from the 1st July, 1923—the increases provided for under the Act of 1920. The House will certainly adopt that provision of the Bill. Now that the Government have decided that there shall be no discretionary power on the part of the local authorities, but that they shall be compelled to give the increases which the Government thought it right they should give, I wish to ask whether this Bill, if and when it becomes an Act, will give the increased pensions as and from the date fixed by the 1920 Act. I think it is only fair that that should be done, and I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that it is done, in view of the fact that the House clearly decided that, in their opinion, "May" meant "shall." An Amendment to that effect was moved by me in the Committee upstairs, and the Committee would have insisted on the substitution of the word "shall" had not the then Solicitor-General got up and, in so many words, begged the Committee not to accept the Amendment because it was fully recognised not only by the present Government, but by all Governments, that the two words were equivalent in meaning and that there was no fear that the increases would not be given by all the authorities. We know how wrong that declaration by the Solicitor-General of that day has proved to be. Still the Government are determined and the House is determined there shall no longer be any question that the increases authorised under the Act of 1920 shall be given.
Only a few authorities have been so niggardly as to refuse to give them. What I want to ask the Government is, Will they allow words to be introduced into the Bill when it reaches Committee to make it clear once and for all, above any argument whatever, that as from the date fixed by the 1920 Act these poor old pensioners shall have the increase intended for them? There is another point. Some of these authorities—a great many more than those who refused any advance at all—have given only reduced increases. Are they now to be compelled to increase the pensions to the maximum provided for under the Act? They have given a smaller increase than the House of Commons intended should be given, and I hope it will be made clear that it is the desire of the House that the provisions of this new Bill shall be extended to the pensioners as and from the date of the 1920 Act. It cannot amount to very much. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles, but whatever the sum may be, I would like these defaulting authorities to be penalised for their improper treatment of this very important subject, so far as the few people who happen to be within their jurisdiction are concerned. If the Government will introduce such a provision into this Bill I am sure that it will have the unanimous support of the House of Commons.
I do not want to recall to the recollection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer more often than is necessary the fact that there are 523 Members of this House definitely pledged not only to support the small concession I am asking for, but also to do away with the age limit and the means limit. The Government have definitely said that they cannot agree to withdraw either the age limit or the means limit. I think one of the attractions of this Bill is that they make it retrospective as from the 1st July, 1923. In other words, the present increase will be doubled by a bonus payment which will help these people very much during the ensuing year, and within that time I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find some opportunity of going a step further than he is doing to-day. There is another point which I am sure many Members would agree should be introduced into this Bill. I am not certain whether it can be dealt with now, but at any rate I want the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to keep it in mind. It is a point which only affects a really small number of men—the men in the police force who, having earned their pension, were due to retire when the Police Emergency Act was passed, and who, in consequence, were retained at their work. These men were not treated like other members of the force. They were not allowed to retire, and they were not so physically capable of performing their duties as the younger men, who had not yet earned their pensions. Consequently the strain of the War, of the air-raids, and of the other work imposed on them was more likely to affect their health than it did the health of the younger and stronger men, with the result that a large number of these men broke down after continuing work for three or four more years. These men have not attained the age of 60. Many of them are 57, 58 or 59 years of age. I feel sure that the House would willingly give them the benefits which were intended for them under the 1920 Act. They ought to be treated under the new scale. If the Government cannot do that, the least it can do is to allow them to get the increase of pensions where it can be proved that they broke down by being retained under the Emergency Act.
The question has often been asked whether the pensioners of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force are included. The Royal Irish Constabulary are included. The Dublin Metropolitan Police have pre-War pensions which are obviously a charge on the British Treasury. Are they handed over under the Treaty with the Free State, and, if so, was any provision made between the two Governments that any increase granted to the police force of this country would be extended to the Dublin Metropolitan Police? Obviously there was a contract between the Government and the Dublin Metropolitan Police so far as pensions were concerned. It was not within the power of the Government to alter that contract without the consent of the pensioners themselves. That consent has never been obtained. I hear many complaints that the Government of the Free State are none too friendly to the Royal Trish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. Unless some provision has been made by the British Government to safeguard their interest the chances
are—I hope that they will not materialize—that these men will not be as well treated as we would like them to be.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I had intended to make some observations on the Second Reading of this Bill, but obviously it is the intention that the Bill should get a Second Reading as soon as possible. Consequently, while I agree with the statement made by the last speaker, I am willing that the Bill should get a Second Reading now. On behalf of my friends I would say, however, that we reserve the light to move Amendments on the lines which the hon. Gentleman has adumbrated, and on other lines when the Bill is dealt with in Committee.

HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed!"

Major HORE-BELISHA: Although it may be agreed by members of the Socialist party that this Bill should go through, yet., as it does not embody the chief pledge given to those to whom it represents itself as doing justice, it is only right that I should utter a word of protest on this occasion and on every occasion on which I have an opportunity of so doing.

Mr. CLIMIE: You have done it twice already.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Yes, I have done it twice, and I shall do it 50 times as long as I have an opportunity of protesting in this House against conduct which I conceive to be wrong and immoral. This Bill embodies a thoroughly wrong and harmful principle. It embodies the principle that a pension is not retired pay. My hon. Friends on the Labour Benches have continually fought for the principle that pension is retired pay for services rendered. That being the case, there is no possible justification for inquiring into the means of the person to whom that retired pay becomes payable. The object of this Bill should be to put the pre-War pensioners upon a footing of equality with those who have done identical service, although they may have retired after the War. These repeated debates upon pensions show conclusively that the whole of the pension system in this country needs overhauling. From the point of view of sound Government administration nothing could be more harmful than to have these continual discussions seriatim over particular pensions grievances. We have had the
case of the ex-ranker officers, the case of the retired naval officers, the case of the policemen, the case of the ex-naval men and ex-civil servants, and the case of the widows. Every possible category of pensioners comes under a different scheme and is paid a pension at a different rate for identically the same service.
It is the primary duty of any Government which professes to administer pensions to inquire into the system as a whole. I do not for a moment desire to delay any benefit which should be forthcoming to pensioners, but I do say that it is thoroughly bad administration to be coming to this House almost every day and to be wasting time by putting forward proposals which are not finite and must be revised. It is all very well to complain of the length of time spent on the subject. The question is that the thing is being dealt with piecemeal and that no comprehensive policy is pit forward. As long as the thing is continued upon the basis of doing things by halves instead of wholes, the time of the House will be occupied in discussing pensions. In the first place, therefore, I protest most sincerely and energetically against the principle embodied in this Bill, that the State has a right, to inquire into the savings of those to whom it seeks to make payments to which they are justly entitled. Further, I protest against the age limit of 60. If a man has done his service, for heaven's sake let him have the pension to which he is entitled instead of exercising ingenuity to discover how you can possibly cheat him out of it. I protest also against the fact that the means limit, has not been removed. Now that we have this legislation proposed giving increased benefits to old age pensioners, and now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has claimed that the pre-War pensioner will derive the benefit of any concession, he should at any rate put these men on exactly a similar basis.
On the question of the anomaly of these pensions, I do not know whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has considered that this Bill is actually going to penalise civil servants who are retiring to-day. They are going to get actually smaller pensions than the pensions received by those who get the benefit of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman should consider what possible effect the Bill may have on those who are retiring now I
have made my protest, and those are the chief headings of it. I know that the Government are not prepared to make any concessions in the matter, but in view of the consistent and repeated pledges which they have made to these men, it is only right that someone should stand up in this House and let them know what he, at any rate, thinks of them.

Mr. WILLISON: I want to join with the last speaker in his protest. I do not quite understand to what the hon. Member above the Gangway who interrupted (Mr. Climie) was objecting when my hon. Friend got up to state his protest. The Labour party all along have contended how much they intended to do for the old age pensioner, for the police pensioner, and for every other kind of pensioner. Yet, apparently, when we get a Bill that goes only a very small way towards dealing with the problem, the minute my hon. Friend gets up to say something, an hon. Member above the Gangway seeks to interrupt him and, apparently, says, "Oh, there should be a Second Reading without any question being raised." Other parties beside the Labour party have something to say on the question of pensions. The old, old story is still being told in the country on this question. I was addressing a meeting only on Friday, and the old story was trotted out, that if only the Labour party had a majority, how much they would do! One has to keep pointing out to the electors that, if only the Labour party would bring their proposals before the House and give us a chance of supporting them, it would not be a question of a majority. Instead of that, they keep up the old, old story. It will not do. It is time that it ceased.
Here the Government have an opportunity of doing something, so far as the police pensioners are concerned, just as earlier in the day the Government had an opportunity of doing something for the old age pensioner—something, and a mighty small something it is! It is all very well to say that we should be thankful for small mercies. But this Bill is not the redeeming of pledges. Exactly as the old age pensioner will be dissatisfied to-night, when he reads what is proposed for him, so the unfortunate police pensioner will be very dissatisfied.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish everyone was as well off as the police.

Mr. WILLISON: I do not think that there is a better fellow in the country than the British policeman. He is necessary to keep order sometimes—at some of the meetings which hon. Members above the Gangway try to break up in the country. We have to be thankful to the British policeman for a lot, and we are not treating him fairly. I hope that we shall have no more legislation introduced in moving which a Minister of the Crown will say that "may" means "shall" and "shall" means "may." I do not say that hon. Members have not considered it, but I hone that all hon. Members of the House have carefully considered the position of the police pensioner. The hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) and others, relied upon the Minister's statement that "may" meant "shall" and I think I am correct in saying that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) said that was so. But when it was a question of the Act being interpreted in the country we found one interpretation being given in the Midlands and another elsewhere. It entirely depends on the chairman, who may say he does not read "may" as meaning "shall" and interprets the Act accordingly. The result is that the unfortunate policemen in that district receive treatment different from the treatment given to the police in another district where the word "may" has been interpreted as meaning "shall." I desire to support the protest of the hon. Member for Holborn and I hope something will be done for those unfortunate police pensioners who have suffered because of the word being accepted as "may" instead of "shall." I hope they are to be treated properly and that such words will be put in this Bill as will make its provisions compulsory on counties and departments who have avoided payments to the police pensioners by this miserable subterfuge and also that these shall now be called upon to pay as from the date on which they failed to do what they should have done under the previous legislation. I have a case in mind in which a chairman, although his attention had been directed to the statements made on behalf of the Government, acted contrary to those statements I trust the Government will take care that
nothing of that kind will occur again and the wrong done to these policemen will be put right.

Mr. SHORT: I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend into the discussion which he has initiated on the merits of the Bill or the pledges enunciated by respective Members of the Government. I think the Debate on the Money Resolution afforded ample opportunities for that discussion, and for the protests which were then made in connection with this Bill. I rise to obtain further information from the Financial Secretary regarding the Orders which the Treasury was empowered to issue under Section 3 of the original Act. I understand that Section is still operative, and that it now becomes compulsory because of the word "shall" being included in the present Bill. Under the Act of 1920 it was possible for the Treasury to issue an Order and for a particular authority to take no notice whatever of that Order. It was possible for payments of pensions continue without any increase being made in accordance with the Act. I understand from the Financial Secretary that this cannot happen under the provisions of the present Measure. May I call attention to the attitude of what is in my opinion to be regarded as a local authority, namely, the Port of London Authority. In October, 1920, the Treasury issued an Order which brought the Superannuation (Metropolis) Act, 1860, within the provisions of the Act of 1920, and certain pensioners of the Port of London Authority, dealt with under the former Act, were presumably covered by that Order. As far as I know the authority never paid any increase to those pensioners, and up to now have not done so. I understand under the present. 13–11 it will not be possible for the Port of London Authority to evade its obligations and responsibilities in this matter. The London County Council, the Metropolitan Water Board and other local authorities in this great city have respected their obligations and put the Act of 1920 into operation. I want to know whether the Port of London Authority will be regarded as a local authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1920. I want to go a step further. There are other pensioners deriving pensions from the Port of London Authority under various pensions schemes other than that
of the Superannuation (Metropolis) Act, 1866. There are pensioners who derive their pensions under, for instance, the London and East India pensions scheme.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The Bill says "all pensions granted by a police, local or other public authority."

Mr. SHORT: I accept that, but I desired to know definitely.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: On a point of Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said something which was quite inaudible, and then my hon. Friend said he accepted that statement. I think the House should know what it is the hon. Member accepts. We could not understand what was transpiring, and I think we are entitled to know.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot take responsibility for hon. Members' understanding.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: One would like to know what secret arrangements are arrived at between the hon. Member who was in possession of the House and His Majesty's Government in the course of the speeches. Surely there is some machinery for ascertaining the views which have been expressed sotto voce by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. SPEAKER: All I say is that the Chair is not the machinery.

Mr. SHORT: I am quite satisfied. All the Chancellor of the Exchequer called my attention to were the exact words included in the provisions of the Bill. I said I accepted the statement of the Chancellor as being correct, and that is all. I was saying that there are other pensioners governed by other schemes, notably the London and East India pension scheme, the Surrey Commercial Docks pensions scheme, and the Port of London Authority pensions scheme, whereas the Order issued would presumably refer to pensioners governed by the Superannuation (Metropolis) Act, 1866. I want to know if the Treasury will issue a similar Order bringing the pensioners under these various other schemes which I have mentioned within the provisions of this Bill and of the Act of 1920. In the past Orders issued by the Treasury have been evaded, and I want to know if the Port of London Authority is to be treated as a local authority or other public
authority and if the benefits described by the Financial Secretary in connection with this Bill will be available to the pensioners I have mentioned.

Sir G. HOHLER: I rather think I have got at the secret of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has suggested to the hon. Member who spoke last that the words "public authority" contained in this Bill cover the cases which have been raised. I assume that is so, although I would like to know definitely. I am aware that we are at the mercy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. We are bound hand and foot and must take this Bill or take nothing, and therefore I am taking this Bill. But I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove one part of the Bill, namely, the proviso. The whole complaint of the House both in regard to the first Resolution and the second Resolution, was that the increases of pensions were too small. As I read the proviso—and in this I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha)—I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been careful to prevent any pension existing in 1920 being increased above pensions which have since been granted. Is not that very unfair? It was no part of the Government's original proposal and, indeed, I am not at all sure that it is not due to the fact of the Financial Secretary's attention being called to this matter that these increases are so small. The Government are actually by this proviso cutting down the increases, but I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hold out some hope that this will be made right. I know his responsibilities in regard to money matters, but I think, when the whole House joins in asking him not to cut down these increases, he might give way on the point in Committee and might not insist upon this proviso. Some of these men are over 60 and will not live to attain 70, and I beg of the Chancellor to hold out some hope in this respect. I think the right hon. Gentleman will feel in his own heart that he ought to do so, because the feeling of the House is that the increases are small. If the Government are not prepared to give pensions now, less than those which men are to receive under the Bill, why should they not increase the new pensions which have
been given, or which will be given? That is, surely, the right way to meet the case instead of cutting down these pensions, and it can be done within the Resolution. Apart from that I welcome the Bill. It has been too long delayed and, although the increases may be small, they are welcome, but I again appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to get rid of the proviso which is neither just nor fair.

8.0 P.M.

Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSON: I fully realise that it is impossible to get by amendment anything more out of this Bill than the Bill actually gives, because it is governed by the Money Resolution, and I merely rise to make this statement to let the Chancellor of the Exchequer know, and, indeed, any future Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whatever party he may belong, that I and my hon. Friends who think with me in this House—and there are a good many—are going to press very strongly, and take the earliest opportunity to get discussion of, a Resolution which shall provide for the abolition of the age limit, and for the abolition of the means limit on all State pensions up to £100 a year. It is no use saying that that is going to cost the country much. It is going to cost practically nothing, or very little. I believe it would cost not more than £50,000 or £60,000 in the first year. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer smiling at that, but I believe I am correct, and that it will disappear in five years to nothing at all, because the average age of these people is somewhere round about 70 at the present moment, and their expectation of life is not more than four or five years. I want to make it perfectly clear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any future, Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we shall press for this, and I believe we shall get a large majority in this House in favour of it. I shall also press for it all over the country at the next Election. I repeat that I am utterly dissatisfied with this Bill. It does not go any distance or only a short way, to meet the case, but one does not want delay, and it is better to get it through at the present moment.

Mr. GRAHAM: Perhaps, in not more than a few sentences, I ought to take up two or three points that hon. Members have put, subject to this proviso, to which the House will agree, that they
are practically Committee points. In reply to the hon. and learned Member, may I say that I think he raised a question far greater and tar more important than he himself appreciated in the speech that he made. The truth is that the absence of an overriding maximum in the Act of 1920 led to very serious anomalies, and as this is a Measure designed to give an increase of pensions to pre-1920 pensioners who have suffered because of the rise in the cost of living, it would be wrong to put these anomalies right by increasing the pensions and allowances of anyone retiring on and after 1st July, 1923, with corresponding length of service. What the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests would cost millions and millions of money and would alter the whole basis of the scheme.

Sir G. HOHLER: My recollection is that in March, 1921, there was a Treasury Minute in regard to civil servants—I have in mind the dockyards. Instead of giving them an increased pension on their bonus on the cost of living, their bonus for the purpose of pension end the sliding scale of their pension were made to depend, not on the cost of living but on the rise and fall in the trade—the engineering trade, for instance.

Mr. GRAHAM: I see now to what the hon. and learned Member is referring. He is on a totally different subject, namely, the industrial bonus, and not the increase we are giving in this case, based on the increase in the cost of living. I have already replied to correspondents on that point, and to hon. Members, and, in any case, I do discuss it now, because I do not think it is relevant to this Bill. The hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) raised the question of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. That, as I indicated on the last occasion, has been very carefully considered, but there is no doubt that it is a transferred service, and it is not within our power to deal with that in this Measure. We have no right or power or opportunity of doing so, and I am afraid that chapter must be regarded as closed.

Sir J. REMNANT: Did the Free State undertake to give the advantages of the increase we have given?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is a point which would need inquiry. The hon. Member
knows that, at the present time, negotiations are proceeding between the Free State and this Government with regard to various matters. Those are two of the points that have been raised. There were other questions referred to, of which the most important is that relating to the retrospective portion of the local authorities. I entirely agree that when the 1920 Act was passed it was understood in this House that "may" meant "shall," and that the Clause was regarded as obligatory in character. It turned out afterwards that was not so, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of local authorities did give the increase, a small number gave nothing at all, and a number of them gave a certain amount of increase. The question has been raised as to whether the retrospective proposal in this Bill can with safety go beyond the 1st July, 1923, in order to compel those local authorities to come up to the full scale of increase as between 1920 and 1923. I am perfectly willing to consider proposals made in this connection between now and the Committee stage, but it was only with very great hesitation that we agreed to try compulsion of a retrospective character on local authorities, and to go back to 1920 would compel the provision of money, and gives rise to other difficulties, especially in regard to accounts which must be regarded as closed. I think there is very great difficulty in going beyond the 1st July, 1923, and, accordingly, I can hold out little or no hope of extending the compulsory element beyond that date. Hon. Members will have an opportunity of raising the point in Committee, when I shall try to give any information. I have. I trust that that brief reply will enable us to get the Second Reading of the Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. W. Graham.]

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session making provision with respect to leave of absence from India of the Governor-General, Commander-in-Chief, and Governors and members of Executive Councils, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Revenues of India of any salaries, leave allowances, and travelling or other expenses which may become payable under such Act"—(King's Recommendation Signified).—[Mr. Richards.]

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Richards.]

Committee report Progres; to sit again To-morrow.

BRITISH MUSEUM (No. 2) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir Douglas Hogg.]

ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [21st May], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall.]

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I propose to detain the House only a few moments, but I think hon. Members will agree with me that the matter is of some urgency, as it affects the action of the Government in regard to a body of 50 or 60 men, and, I think, a larger body still. The matter was raised on Tuesday, when I asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he proposed to discharge any examiners or other employés in the Naval Inspection Department at Woolwich Arsenal, and, if so, whether he proposed to offer them any further employment. This was the reply that I received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty:
It has become necessary to discharge a number of men who have been employed on examination work, there being no longer work for them, and in these circumstances I regret it is not possible to offer the men further employment.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th, June, 1024; col. 267, Vol. 175.]
I may say that the hon. Member, replying to my question, rather limited it. I asked whether further employment was going to be obtained for these men, but I did not confine his efforts to his own Department, but wished to know whether anything could be done in any other direction. Unless the Government can give some undertaking to-night, I understand these men, some 50 in number, have been discharged and are out of employment. They are heads of families, and the majority of them are ex-service men. Naturally, everyone is concerned about these men, and, as I have said many times in this House about men employed under any Government, the Government ought to set an example in this matter. That, however, is not the end of it. I understand that the discharges of another body of men, some 200 in number, I believe, are contemplated by His Majesty's Government. It is a very serious thing. In this particular district at Woolwich, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) knows, we are suffering more unemployment than in almost any other part of the country. Not only is there the ordinary amount of unemployment, but, owing to other discharges that have taken place under the auspices of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whom I am glad to see here to-night, because he knows all about it, a very large number of discharges have taken place there.
When I asked a question the other day as to how many men have been dismissed
by the Secretary of State for War since he took office, I was told that the number reached nearly 500. It will not, therefore, be surprising to the House to learn that the attitude of the Government, or of any Government which is causing discharges to this extent, in a district already considerably overburdened, is creating a great deal of anxiety. I hope the hon. Member who speaks for the Admiralty, in consultation with the Financial Secretary to the War Office, will be able to make some reassuring statement and to indicate, if these men have been discharged, or if others are going to be discharged, what efforts the Government are going to make to find them employment, not necessarily at the Admiralty or in the War Office, but elsewhere. I had a letter the other day from one of these men, in which he said:
I wish you would look and see what the present Prime Minister said when he came to Woolwich and corrested the East Division"—
which is now represented by my hon. Friend opposite—
about discharges in Woolwich Arsenal, and what he would do. I look to you to remind him of what was said on that occasion.
I have looked this matter up, and I may tell the House that on that occasion the constituency of East Woolwich was asked to "Vote for MacDonald and a full Arsenal," and when the present Prime Minister was challenged about this matter, he made a suggestion as to what he should do if only he represented East Woolwich in Parliament and discharges were taking place. He said this—and I commend it to the members of his Government to-day. There was a suggestion attributed to me on that occasion that I should object to having him as my colleague in the representation of Woolwich, and that I might have some difficulty in going with him to the War Office to demand employment for men discharged, and the present Prime Minister said:
You can perfectly well understand that when I go to the War Office, and they say, 'No work for Woolwich.' when I say, 'Are you perfectly sure there is no Post Office work it can do, no demands of the municipalities that can be supplied if you made inquiries, have you not an Intelligence Department that will be active in getting Woolwich work? if they say 'No.' then I say, 'All right, wait until the War Office Vote conies up in the House of Commons, and you will find out what I will say to you.'
I therefore invite hon. Members opposite, who can apparently find no work for these men, to go to the Post Office, or to see whether any of the municipalities require work, and I also inquire whether they have an intelligence department such as has been suggested by the Prime Minister. In conclusion, I wish to make this further inquiry. Another matter is the demand of the semi-skilled and unskilled men at Woolwich to have their wages raised to the, same proportion as the wages of the skilled men have recently been raised by an Arbitration Tribunal. We are very anxious to know whether the Government are prepared to adopt the recommendations in accordance with what the Arbitration Tribunal have done. I hope these wages will be raised, as I think they ought in justice to be done, inasmuch as an Arbitration Tribunal has fixed them, but even that would be very little consolation to the men who are going to be discharged. No doubt it will be a measure of satisfaction if certain wages are raised, but it by no means gets rid of the responsibility of the Government, at this particular hour, in a very difficult constituency, where unemployment, is so rife, at any rate to do something for these men at the present time, and I appeal to the Government to do something on their behalf.

Mr. SNELL: I am personally concerned to do what I can to help these men who have been discharged, and not at all interested in trying to score party points or in quoting election speeches. If such a thing helped, I could quote speeches from other electioneering literature, not far removed from the division which I represent, but I would like to associate myself very sincerely with the appeal that has been made, that the position of these 50 or 55 men should be considered. We have done our very best over a series of years in Woolwich to try to meet the very exceptional circumstances and the very exceptional distress, but, in spite of every effort that we have made by private negotiation with the Government to stabilise employment in the Arsenal, we have these recurring panics at unexpected moments, and we cannot help feeling that, if we could have financial foresight in the proper allotting of financial supplies, we could get some kind of a system of employment in the Arsenal, and other national yards, whereby, when a man was employed, he could feel reasonably safe that his employment would be secure.
That is what makes the matter so distressing, for we find the men walking about, skilled men, men of high character and capacity, and then suddenly, without a word of warning, they are thrown on to the streets at a time, too, when there is only the remotest chance of that kind of skill which we had in the arsenal being re-employed. I should like the House to remember what are the conditions of work there. We employ skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled men, but, in any case, their employment is in relation to certain specific things which probably is not useful to them outside the gates of the arsenal or the national yards. It is because of this very great difficulty that the workmen have in getting work outside, that the Government has a real moral responsibility to try to stabilise employment in their own national yards so that calamity should not come upon these deserving men.
In addition to this there is the distressing condition of the borough in question. I have before in this House told the story how, during the War, the Government brought into that area some 100,000 men to meet the emergencies of the nation. The work which they did received not only the spoken gratitude of Lord Kitchener, the Secretary of State for War, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), but in every direction there came words of thanks for the service that these men did. Yet directly the War is over the Government seem to feel no responsibility. I refer not specially to this Government, but the previous Government, and the Government before. They seemed to feel no responsibility whatever for this district into which they had piled an enormous number of people to suit their own convenience. When this convenience was satisfied, then those concerned could go without any help whatever! That is the situation. It is extremely distressing. We have over 12,000 men on the unemployment roll in the borough at present, and yet the Government turn out, on occasions such as this, 50 or 100 men, adding thus to the very great existing distress.
I know it is an easy thing to complain. It may be a hard thing to satisfy any claim that is made, but we do feel that some kind of alternative work should be
provided. We do feel in our minds that some effort should be made to provide this, so that men need not be turned away when these crises of unemployment recur. I do not want to particularise, but I understand we are going to have a good many houses built pretty soon. These houses will require fittings, metal fittings, which can be produced in the Government's own national yards—locks, bolts, window sashes, and articles of this sort. These things could be done if the Government of the day were willing td approach the matter in the proper spirit. The workers themselves have made suggestions of this kind to me, and whilst I do not for a moment associate myself with any suggestion that this Government has done worse than any other Government in the matter—personally I believe it has done a great deal better—for the workers in Woolwich Arsenal have received some increase in wages since this Government came into office, and for that they are grateful—but I do say that it ought to be possible for the Government to set a great example in the stabilisation of employment, and so endeavour to arrange for less of this dreadful distress that comes upon men so suddenly discharged from their work.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): At the outset. I have to apologise to hon. Members that I am not so well prepared as I might have been for this Debate, because it was expected a little later, and perhaps another representative of the Admiralty might have had the duty of replying. I need, perhaps, hardly assure the House that the matter under discussion, the discharge of certain men, would not have been decided upon until we had explored every possible avenue to see if it could be avoided, and in the hope that we might be able to find some work to keep them going, for some time at least. But as has been said before, in the Governmental dockyards and other establishments of the sort, where the manufacture of war material has been going forward, that work has gradually been ceasing until there is little or no work to be done. We are now unloading the War establishments that were gathered together during the. War. I am afraid that I should only be deceiving hon. Members—and I do not want to do that—
if I said that there was any possibility of keeping these men on, or of preventing the discharges taking effect if not now, at a little later date. I have to-day discussed at the Admiralty if any means can be found of putting work in hand for them to do.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: May I make a suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty He says he has been all through the Departments in endeavouring to find, if possible, work for these discharged men. Might I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consults the Government about the Lower Thames Tunnel. There is a scheme going through to build a tunnel beneath the Loner Thames, between the Medway and Tilbury. I do not quite agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, who has just suggested that work should be found in the manufacture of house fittings and so on for these skilled men, but there is always the steel works needed in tunnels. If this is taken up by the Government there might be work done at the Woolwich Royal Arsenal by these men. I desire to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich who spoke so ably on the subject: and here I suggest there is a case where you can give these men steel work. Why, therefore, not do it?

Mr. AMMON: I shall be glad to consider the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman or of any Member. In respect, however, to the men under discussion, they are examiners of explosives. We are now manufacturing fewer and fewer shells, and therefore it is obvious that their work is growing less and less. I do not know how many hon. Members would suggest that you should keep these men on when there is nothing for them to do? Still I will bear in mind the suggestions that have been made.

Mr. B. SMITH: I should like to ask the Deputy-Leader of the House whether he could not consider now many of the statements which were made by people on these benches as to the utilisation of Woolwich Arsenal for civil work. There is a great work to be done in London. The River Thames al the present time has 13 bridges, and work in connection with some of these bridges, or a good deal of it, could be done in Woolwich Arsenal. Two of these bridges are absolutely out
of repair for traffic, namely, Waterloo and Lambeth. Two more of these bridges, Battersea and Wandsworth, at the present time allow no vehicle ever two tons to pass over. This leaves nine bridges out of 13 for the ordinary traffic of London. I think if you compare this city, with its 7,000,000 population, which serves an area covering over 11,000,000 of population—that is, from the docks upwards—if you compare it with Paris, with its 21 bridges over the Seine, I think you will see that this is a city which, as I suppose, is the most congested in the world. It is suffering from an absolute paucity of bridges.
There may be a question of a tunnel from Tilbury, and other tunnels, but it does seem to me, having regard to the discussions taking place this week, and which will be continued to-morrow, on the question of traffic control, that here with proper and sufficient bridges there would be given the greatest fluidity and mobility to the traffic in and about London that could possibly be given. I could mention bridges that could go right away from Hendon, and of bridges necessary at Nine Elms to carry away the great goods traffic direct along the North and South loads which would relieve the present approaches. There is the question of the Channel Tunnel. I understand that in France already it is agreed upon and the men and the money are ready, and the same applies in this country, and all that is wanted is power to commence the tunnel from this side. All these things could be developed along the line of constructional steelwork, and Woolwich Arsenal could be utilised for that purpose, because it is work which it is absolutely fitted for. I am glad to know we are not making shells there, but that is no argument for repeating what has happened at, Gretna, where we have been shutting down the works wholesale and discharging men when we could have utilised both the men and the plant for the development of London, which is much in need of better bridges for giving facilities for traffic.

HOUSING.

Mr. WILLISON: A remark which fell from an hon. Member above the Gangway causes me to rise to ask the Minister of Health whether he can do anything to assist in regard to important questions
arising in the Nuneaton Division of Warwickshire, which I have the honour to represent. The hon. Member said we were going to build a number of houses soon. We hope that we are going to build them soon, but I am afraid we are not going to build them unless we not only have talk here, but we shall require the Minister to do his best to assist not only local authorities but also private enterprise with regard to the building of those houses. I want to refer to three instances. The papers with respect to one of them have only reached me within the last two or three hours. If I can produce three distinct cases in my own division, and all within a small area, I cannot help feeling that this same state of affairs must exist in other constituencies throughout the country, and if that be so the sooner we have the question dealt with the better.
The question I want to raise is an important one, because it deals with the building of 500 houses in a mining district. The case I refer to is the Arley Housing Scheme. They propose to deal with the building of 500 houses. In accordance with their proposed scheme they appear to have approached the council, who, certainly, told them that, so far as they were concerned, they would do everything they possibly could to assist them in obtaining the subsidy. I think that is the position throughout the country. We find people are anxous to deal with the house shortage, and they believed that there would be a subsidy, and when they applied to their councils they were assured they would be assisted. The people responsible for this scheme appear to have started with 54 houses, and, as I understand it, so far as they are concerned, the position now is, that although the Minister says that in regard to certain houses in this scheme, which have to be completed by a certain date, he is quite prepared to agree that they are entitled to this subsidy, hut so far as the 54 houses are concerned it cannot be allowed. I am assured that the position is that unless they obtain the subsidy, with regard to the 54 houses in question it means interfering with the whole scheme for continuing to build the remainder of the 500 houses.

Mr. B. SMITH: Can we have a representative of the Ministry of Health present during this discussion?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): I have nothing to do with that.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Is it not the custom for an hon. Member before raising a question of this kind to give notice to the Minister concerned of his intention?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That may be the custom, but it does not prevent the hon. Member from raising this question.

Mr. WILLISON: I am not going to allow this opportunity to pass. I am the last man in the world to be discourteous to anybody, but I always thought that if the Minister was not able to be present there would be somebody here connected with the Department. The reason why this subject is pressing from my point of view, and the reason why I have raised it, is because I am assured it is a most serious question in this district, where I happen to know there is a crying need for houses. Do not let us stop a crying need for houses when there seems to be an opportunity for getting on with it, if only the Minister will endeavour not to ginger up his Department, but not to raise too many fine points with regard to the question of a subsidy. The second case I wish to mention shows the difficulty, and again it relates to the Ministry of Health. In that case the Nuneaton Council applied to the Ministry in connection with a housing scheme at Stockton. Their contract was approved by the Minister, and the order was accordingly placed and the work done. Now that the work is completed, and the question of payment arises, the Minister's Department—not the Minister—are seeking to mulct the local council in certain payments with regard to a road. In the original plan these roads were shown, and no point was raised at the time with regard to them, but the Ministry now—not the Minister—raise the point that, inasmuch as these roads go in one place past a school, and in another case past a recreation ground, the local authority shall be called upon to pay a certain proportion of the cost. Naturally, the local authority say that they did not bargain to be burdened in that way, but were endeavouring to deal with the housing shortage, and they resent it so far as that is concerned.
The third case is of a different nature altogether. It is that of a working man, who is also in my constituency, and who had nowhere to take his wife and children,
and, accordingly, entered upon a scheme, believing that he was going to get the subsidy. I know it is quite easy to say that he believed he was going to get the subsidy, but, like other working men, he did not wait for the promises of politicians or for Parliament to do this, that or the other; he thought he was dealing with his own housing scheme, and, accordingly, decided to build his house, thinking that he was going to get it in view of the promises that were made. My profession happens to be that of a lawyer, and I have—not as a professional man, but as the Member of Parliament for the Division—gone through the case very carefully with him, and have looked into the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, and the Acts of 1920 and 1923; and it does appear To me that, if the Ministry like to stick to the exact words of the Act, there is a question whether this man is within the Act, and whether he did not start to build too early. This is a very serious matter to him. It really spells ruin to this unfortunate man, and there is no doubt that there are hundreds of other men in the same position. I am not suggesting that the law should be broken, but I am suggesting that the Ministry should construe it kindly.

Mr. MAXTON: I would be in favour of breaking the law, and not in favour of construing it.

Mr. WILLISON: All my life I have been concerned in appearing for gentlemen who have broken the law, and in trying to get them out of it when they have broken the law; and perhaps the next time my hon. Friend breaks the law I may be of assistance to him—or, perhaps, he can break it and get himself out of it. At present I am not proposing to break the law. I do not believe in law-breakers, but in law-abiders. But what I do want is not to break the law but—[An HON"MEMBER: "Bend it!"] Well, to bend it a bit. I do not mind being a law-bender, for I have bent it a good many times, and I hope to bend it again. I am asking whether the Minister will look at this case in a kindly spirit. In view of the point, of Order that was raised just now, and the suggestion that I should have given the Minister notice, I should like to say that I had no idea that I should have the opportunity of getting in. But, in fairness to the Minister and his Department, I should like to say that
I went to his Department with regard to all three of these cases, and I met with nothing but courtesy from those who were there concerned. In fact, no one could have been treated better than I was. I was referred to the Minister's own secretary this morning, and he took me to the different Departments that would deal with two out of these three cases, and they have promised to go through the papers and consider the matter, which no doubt they will do. What I want, however, is to get the houses built, and, therefore, I take this opportunity of asking whether the Minister will say to his Department that he desires, where a right thing can be done and houses can be built, that there should be a little kindly consideration so far as his Department is considered, and that the Department should look at this matter in that benevolent spirit. If he does so, and if his Department will do so, I am quite confident that I can convince them that in all three of these cases they will be advantaging and advancing the housing question and dealing with the housing difficulty.

AFFORESTATION.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I am delighted to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture here, because this is the first opportunity we have had of really getting to know what it is that he intends to do about afforestation. The Tory party is conspicuous by its absence from the Benches opposite, but we are just in time to do something for afforestation next winter. The Forestry Commissioners, who were appointed, as I understand, by Sign Manual in 1909, are not represented on the Government Front Bench. We cannot raise the question of their salaries or move a reduction in their salaries, and this is about the only opportunity we are likely to have of getting at the Ministry of Agriculture and asking what it really is that they intend to do. We had a Royal Commission in 1909 on this subject, and That Royal Commission scheduled 9,000,000 acres in this country as suitable for afforestation, of which 5,000,000 acres were scheduled in Scotland. We were told that 1,000,000 men and women were employed in the German State forests before the War—employed in an occupation which is at once healthy and economic; and this par-
ticular Royal Commission, which was not composed of wild men from the Clyde, but was composed of Conservatives, with a Liberal or two just for spice, reported that, if we afforested only 150,000 acres per annum, we should, at the end of the 81st year, have State property to the value—that was in pre-War times—of £562,000,000, and a net profit, allowing compound interest, of £106,000,000. I suggest that schemes are in existence now, pigeon-holed at the Ministry of Agriculture, whereby we could employ 50,000 men in healthy occupations which would ultimately bring a profit to the State. I asked a question to-day about the results of a private Capitalist experiment at Holy Loch on the West Coast of Scotland. The firm of Bryant and May, the largest match manufacturers in the country, went up there. They are so hard up for soft woods. They discovered that Scotland can grow finer soft woods than they can import from abroad. They bought three sheep farms, and the number of men now employed full time is four times the number when the farms were under sheep.
9.0 P.M.
I should like to tell the Parliamentary Secretary what Sir John Stirling Maxwell, the greatest authority on afforestation, said in a pamphlet describing a German forest. It extends to 10,000 acres, in addition to 3,000 acres of agricultural land. In the Highlands of Scotland this would mean one small deer forest, or at the most a couple of sheep farms, which would support two tenants and 13 shepherds, or 15 families in all. In Germany the population is as follows. A head forester and clerk, six forest guards, 10 unskilled workmen, and 25 other men finding employment all the year round with contractors. There is thus permanent employment for 43 men. In addition, 80 woodcutters are employed for about six months and 70 women are employed for about two months on nursery planting and other light work: There are also 260 men employed in various subsidiary industries. The forest is giving constant employment to 303 men, besides the 80 men employed for six months and the 70 women occasionally employed. The total population in the area affected by the forest is 2,500. It is calculated that 1,500 of them are directly dependable on the forest. The remaining inhabitants are
small tradesmen, saddlers, smiths, etc., people employed in small agricultural industries, and many of them are indirectly employed in the forest and the work it brings to the district. If it is even half true or a quarter true it is time the 9,000,000 acres officially scheduled as suitable for agriculture in this country are immediately examined by the Board of Agriculture. 50,000 men could be employed profitably in clearing the ground, fencing and drainage and 50,000 could be indirectly employed in building huts, light railways and so on—not in digging holes and filling them up again, but employed in an industry which is officially certified to be an economic one, a proposition which will yield profit to the State, take 100,000 men away from the congested areas and put them back into health-giving rural conditions so that we can begin once more to have a rural peasantry. There is work at hand for a Labour Government.
The Conservative party professes to be in favour of afforestation. The Liberal party also professes to be in favour of it, and the Labour party has officially de-dared itself in favour of it. How much longer will the Conservatives and the Liberals and our back benches agree to a system where afforestation, the biggest thing we can tackle, is represented in this House not by a member of the Government at all, but by a Liberal, over whom the Government have no control whatsoever, and who represents the Forestry Commissioners, all of whom are opposed politically to the Government of the day, all of whom are busy obstructing the afforestation proposals of the Liberal and Labour parties. I cannot speak for the Conservative party, about whose views we can get no information whatever. We know further that thousands of pounds of public money which have been spent in assisting afforestation have been wasted because deer and vermin, rabbits, and so on, have been allowed to come in and destroy the young trees. I will give the Parliamentary Secretary the full detailed proposals by the greatest expert in the country. If he will make this his hobby he can this winter employ 50,000 men. There is something for unemployment. There is something for public health. There is something for ultimate State profit. When these people
get wages they do not throw them in the sea. They buy boots, clothes, furniture and all the rest of it. You will begin to have a rural peasantry again. We are sending the best of our peasantry beyond the seas to plant timber and to plough virgin soil in Canada, when we have in our own country 9,000,000 acres which can grow timber, which 31 present we import from abroad, certified by Bryant and May to be better timber than the Norwegians can supply us with. Why should that be? I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary not to let the time slip along, but to make this question a real live issue in the country. If he does that he will deserve well of his class, and he will bring encomiums o the present Labour Ministry. I appeal to him to take up the question and not allow it to drift.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I am sure the House has listened, as it always does, with great interest to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken when he speaks upon this question of afforestation. This is not the first time we have heard him plead for something to be done in this directions, and the interest is always added to by the fact that he speaks with a great deal of knowledge on the matter. He will readily understand the difficulty of my position to-night, in view of the fact that I only quite recently heard that this question was to be raised, and it makes it extremely difficult for me to make anything like an authoritative statement.
The position is by no means easier because of the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture are not directly in control of this question. For some reason or other, the jurisdiction in regard to afforestation has been placed under another authority and is represented in this House by Commissioners, who alone are the ones who can speak with authority for that particular Department. Figures have been quoted with regard to the extent of the area suitable for the growing of timber, and we realise the fact that the classes of timber there grown is, in regard to certain requirements, superior to that which we import from abroad, and that the industry of afforestation is one of a health-giving character, and will stand very favourable comparison with many of the industries associated with
large industrial centres. Therefore, from that standpoint, one can say that this is a question that deserves the very fullest consideration and, if possible, steps should be taken to bring about some development in this direction.
Speaking my own views on the matter, because there has not been opportunity for consultation, I would like to see this question examined from the standpoint of linking it up with the question of afforestation and land settlement. The matter is not entirely at a standstill. I have had some association with it, because for the past four or five years I have been a member of an Advisory Committee of the Forestry Commission, and have obtained some knowledge and information, and I know that steps are being taken and that land has been acquired in the recent past, which was very largely of a derelict character, and is now being utilised for the purpose of growing timber.
I have always been of opinion that if the question of afforestation is to be as successful as we would like it to be, it will have to be considered in connection with some scheme of land settlement. There is a difficulty in maintaining the employment of men on the land all the year round. There are some periods when they can be employed, and other periods when it is difficult to find them employment. If this question can be considered from the standpoint of a scheme of land settlement whereby the men would have some land of their own to cultivate, the results would be more successful. It might be that the land would not be of much value as compared with some land we have, but there are certain forms of agriculture for which it could be used. For instance, there is poultry farming and pig breeding for which the land could be used. Some of it might be used for the purpose of fruit farms. Some of the land obtained for the purpose of afforestation is better suited for some form of food cultivation than for the growing of timber. If the scheme could be viewed from that standpoint and land acquired which will enable us to develop large schemes of afforestation and link them up with schemes of land settlement, perhaps this question will reach a better position than it has reached up to the present time.
The Government are not entirely remiss with regard to this matter. I am entitled
to recall the fact that the Prime Minister has committed himself to the desirability of something being done in this direction. The difficulty is that there is no particular Ministry or definite authority which can be approached and the machinery set in operation for the purpose of evolving some scheme.

An HON. MEMBER: Haw is it that the Government do not control this particular Department? It seems strange to me that the Government should have to apologise that they do not control the Forestry Commission.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that these difficulties have arisen and that the Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary are perfectly well aware of the difficulty, and having regard to the great stumbling block of having no forestry representatives under direct Government control in this House, is the Minister of Agriculture considering, or does he intend to consider at an early date, the advisability of trying to bring the Department into line with other Departments? We ought to get some assurance on that point.

Mr. SMITH: Both questions put to me are very proper ones bearing upon this question. In regard to the first question, all I can say is that it is the decision of past Parliaments, and we can only take up the position where past Parliaments have left it. We very much wish we could put this matter right at an early date, but my hon. Friends must realise that the accumulation of years of neglect constitute an astonishing problem in more respects than in afforestation. I will take steps to have this question brought to the notice of the Minister and suggest to him the advisability of steps being taken to see whether this question of afforestation could not be brought directly under the jurisdiction of the Ministry, whereby there might be better opportunities of dealing with the question than there appear to be at the moment.
In regard to the general question, I can assure my hon. Friends that the Government are not unaware of its importance. They are fully cognisant of the desirability of something being done. We would like to see it developed in the interests of finding employment for those who are out of work, and as a better means of using the land than some of it is used at the present
time, I will take the very earliest opportunity of conveying the matter to my right hon. Friend, and I will convey to him the fact that many hon. Members feel very keenly upon the question. Something has already been done. On the borders of the County of Norfolk, for instance, an area has been acquired and is being worked to develop it for afforestation. Whether or not any part of it can be used for land settlement I do not know, but I will convey to my right hon. Friend what has been stated as to the desirability of extending afforestation, coupled with a scheme of land settlement which would help to put it on a sound basis, and also as to the necessity of finding some means of bringing this particular branch of Government activity under the control of the Minister.

ORDNANCE DEPOT, CHILWELL.

Mr. BIRKETT: I am very glad to have this opportunity of raising a point which arises neither from the speech of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) or the hon. Member who has just sat down. Interesting as it would be to do so there is at this hour of the evening no time to enter upon the subject to which they have been referring. I desire to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, to whom I have given notice, about a matter which affects the people of Nottingham very closely. I understand that the depot at Chilwell is to be closed down. The information has come from the War Office. Nottingham of all places in this country is in a particularly difficult position at this time of unemployment, having regard to the depression of its staple industry, the lace industry, which is suffering from the greatest depression, and it is provoking to see that that difficulty is now made
worse. So far as Chilwell is concerned this depot has been a godsend during these years of depression, and now at this time of unexampled difficulty the official policy of the War Office is to close down the depot.
Coincidentally with that I understand it to be the policy of the War Office to spend £186,900 upon premises at Didcott. My submission is that the ordnance stocks of this country are likely to remain pretty constant during the next year or two. If it be a fact that the War 'Office are going to spend £190,000 on new buildings and stores, common-sense policy dictates that the premises at Chilwell, which have been built at enormous expense, which are eminently suited for the purpose, should, at any rate, be used for that purpose during the next few years until this time of difficulty is tided over. I am glad to see present the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Varley), who, I am sure, will support me in this, knowing as he does that the situation in Nottingham is one which is almost too terrible to contemplate. I would ask the Financial Secretary, is it a fact that the War Office are going to spend £190,000 on premises at Didcott? If so, is it a fact that those premises are to be used solely or wholly for the purposes which the premises at Chilwell would meet, and meet adequately? If that is so, why should not, during the next few years, the premises at Chilwell, which are suitable for this particular purpose, be used, and thus provide further employment in the city of Nottingham and at the same time save £190,000?

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, end 40 Members not being present—

The House was adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes after Nine of the Clock until To-morrow.